Talk:Hazard analysis

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Occupational Safety and Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Underwater diving Low‑importance

	Underwater diving portal This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Underwater divingWikipedia:WikiProject Underwater divingTemplate:WikiProject Underwater divingUnderwater diving articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Chemical and Bio Engineering (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering articles

Too much focus on FAA and avionics

This article is too focused on the U.S. FAA. There are a multitude of industries (oil refineries, chemical plants, power plants, etc.) which are required by U.S. OSHA and U.S. EPA regulations to implement hazard analyses. Nations other than the U.S. also have similar requirements. The article needs to be more general rather than focusing on the FAA. - mbeychok 04:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAA would be the equivalent European authority to FAA. Nordby73 10:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that does not change the fact that the article focuses on the avionic usage of "hazard analysis" when the subject of "hazard analysis" is very, very much broader than that. The article needs to be rewritten and generalized. - mbeychok 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is too biased towards aircraft safety. There needs to be a section on Process Hazard Analysis (PHA's).--70.54.3.16 02:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argument that the current state of the article match these articles well by helping to get the "big picture": Avionics software and DO-178B. Maybe it's the name of the article which is "wrong", and another more general article is needed in addition? Nordby73 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason software safety is FAA and aircraft oriented is the FAA was the first organization to effectively address this problem. Military and NASA software definitely has safety issues, but the users accept a certain level of risk. Soldiers have signed up for this risk. Astronauts are aware of and willing to take on the risks. But ordinary people flying on commercial aircraft are not willing to take these risks and won't tolerate being subjected to them. So the FAA had to do something. They came out with a comprehensive standard that addressed this issue, and everyone else started using it because it was good and the only thing available. At the time commercial safety critical applications simply didn't use software the way they do now. I expect that other standards will arise as time goes on and the flaws with DO-178x become more of an issue. Cals0813 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No sources cited for tables

There are no sources cited for the "Severity definitions" and "Likelihood of occurrence" tables. Where did this information come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.3.82 (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hazard analysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060407092050/http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=%2Findex.tpl to http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=%2Findex.tpl

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]