Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Professor Michael Harrison
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
Arguing that a system is sufficiently safe to operate in a particular context is an important element in the development of safety-critical systems. Hazard mitigation arguments support safety claims by providing evidence. They do this, typically, by appealing to barriers intended to prevent and to protect from a specific hazard. The paper summarises work on the structure of arguments, and then addresses two research questions: how understanding of the quality of arguments can be applied to hazard mitigation arguments; how making the underlying implied barrier model explicit can improve the argumentation and provide useful in-sights for managing risks. The EUROCONTROL Reduced Vertical Separation Minima Functional Hazard Analysis (RVSM FHA) is used to demonstrate these ideas.
Author(s): Sujan MA, Harrison MD
Editor(s): Guedes Soares, C., Zio, E.
Publication type: Conference Proceedings (inc. Abstract)
Publication status: Published
Conference Name: Safety and Reliability for Managing Risk. Proceedings of the 15th European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL)
Year of Conference: 2006
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group
Library holdings: Search Newcastle University Library for this item