Talk:Hazard analysis

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)


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


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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.

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