RE: [sc] SIL, Communication Protocols (was: Functional Safety, and a Trope)

RE: [sc] SIL, Communication Protocols (was: Functional Safety, and a Trope)

From: blacksafe <blackw_at_xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 20:51:09 +0100
Message-ID: <005201cc1b15$180314a0$48093de0$@xxxxxx>

I do not have the time.  This is one of the reasons why I do not respond to some of the postings.  I also have concerns about trying to give guidance when I do not have the whole picture and do not know the competency of the persons asking for information.  A little bit of knowledge can be very dangerous.  

To write guidance as you suggest takes time and experience.  It is possible that the person who prepared the guidance was paid by the CAA to do so.  I doubt if I could get someone to pay me for the time it would take. 


Bill Black

-----Original Message-----
From: safety-critical-request@xxxxxx [mailto:safety-critical-request@xxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Bernard Ladkin
Sent: 25 May 2011 20:21
To: safety-critical@xxxxxx
Cc: blacksafe
Subject: Re: [sc] SIL, Communication Protocols (was: Functional Safety, and a Trope)


I thought you didn't have time for debating?

On 5/25/11 9:03 PM, blacksafe wrote:
> I think people should read the standard:

I think people should understand the standard.

The difference between our two thoughts is that reading does not imply understanding.

How about an official "commentary" that explains the standard in understandable ways? The CAA does 
it with its "CAP" publications, which explain the Air Order, thick enough to fill a bookshelf, to 
the "common man" (women included).

In contrast, everyone can read and understand the FARs, otherwise known as 14 CFR ...


Peter Bernard Ladkin, Professor of Computer Networks and Distributed Systems,
Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319
Received on Wed 25 May 2011 - 20:51:05 BST