Talk:Hazard analysis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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)
