What Are the Modules In Safety management systems?

                        Safety management systems

Introduction:

A change-management system must be in place for tabletop exercises and testing how changes SMS is a risk-based approach to safety where risks are identified, assessed and placed into existing, or new operational programs. SMS is the management of variables in a Timing Management System.

Affect SMS operational systems. When introducing changes to new equipment or processes, scenarios are configured and played out to establish the risk-factor for risk-factor management. These change-management analysis becomes virtual events of the future, as they are not assessed based on future data collection, but based on past data collection of similar scenarios ..Want To Take Safety Online Course ? Click Safety Online Course..

The making of a safety policy is a design of SMS, while the followed and understood expectations are performance expectations of SMS. However, all operators must apply both an SMS design solution and process flow strategy for complete regulatory compliance with the CARs.

SMS is a risk-based approach to safety where risks are identified, assessed and placed into existing, or new operational programs. SMS is the management of variables in a Timing Management System (TMS). The timing of variables is a fundamental factor in risk management. It is irrelevant to safety-specific if an airplane is parked on the hanger line due to mechanical failures, but becomes relevant for the purpose of flight. If a crew is waiting for that same airplane to be airworthy, the issue of mechanical failure becomes a variable highly important to safety.

What SMS does?

 Integrates with other management systems

  By tailoring a flexible regulatory framework to your organization; and                  Demonstrates good business practice.

The Safety Management System "produces" the Safety plan that defines task, roles and procedures. Such input is well-placed in the Quality Management system in an Organization. From this point of view, the answer is a plain 'Yes'. However, it has some drawbacks concerning the Safety Approval work if the two systems are merged into one system without a possibility to distinguish between Safety and Quality tasks: Any change in any procedure in the Quality System must subsequently be presented to the Safety Authority because it potentially have an impact on Safety.

But the answer is 'Yes'

The question was raised by the Chinese delegation at an international railway safety conference. They concluded that when the staff was paid with bonus arrangements if regularity increased, then they had a tendency to jeopardize the safety. As an example, incidents had occurred where the train driver started the train when an umbrella was stuck in the door, forcing the passengers on a platform to jump.

Therefore, the answer must be 'No'.

Let’s take a look at the rough system definition above. The blue line marks the system.

Industrial Safety Course

Furthermore, the blue line immediately shows the interfaces. The interfaces are marked with green circles. An interface occurs whenever the system interacts with other systems e.g. the wheels interact with the tracks and the train doors interact with the passengers.

Although the system definition is clear, there are still many issues it would be advantageous and time-saving to discuss as early as possible in the trains life cycle:

- Is the maintenance manual a part of the system?

- Should the system involve coupled trains?

- Should the mission definition be a part of the system?

- Is intentional misuse part of the system?

The system definition can be organized into Generic Product, Generic Application and Specific Application as described in the Safety Approval Process.

The system definition defines the hazards in the hazard log because hazards occur at the system borders.

Finally, it might end up with a system definition at block diagram level as shown below. The example below shows the subsystems that were considered inside and outside of the electronic brake system of a Copenhagen commuter train type during a safety approval process.

The rectangle boxes are subsystems and the hexagons boxes are measuring sensors.

Once your company has paid the fee for the NC, you can enroll into a WG of your interest.

Each standard is - in principal - updated every 5'Th year. This means every standard has almost all the time an affiliated active WG, working on the next update.

It can be risky for the major players on the market to ignore the work in the WGs. - Imagine, a major supplier is developing a new Railway safety product (e.g. an interlocking system, a train,..). It takes 5 years and cost 15 million Euro. Once the Company has finished the product, it realizes, a WG in the meantime has released an updated standard, which the product does not satisfy.

Every WG has an appointed chairman who organizes the work. Typically the group meets every 3'rd month in a major city in Europe. Everyone is seated around a table; the text is projected on a large screen. The chairman controls the keyboard; the standard is written as a "One-text negotiation". For example the chairman asks: "Which key documents are necessary in order to implement an adequate Safety Management System?"

Typically participants could be: Siemens, Bombardier, Alston, Westinghouse etc. Other participants could be the Infrastructure owners, the Safety Authorities: French EPSF, German EBA; independent Assessors like DNV and Tub; and the Advisors like Atkins.

Once the WG releases a version it must be formally be approved by the national committees.

If the WG agrees about a subject, it is formulated clearly in the standard; if they disagree, the standard will only contain some vague superior sentences like: "An adequate mitigation activity should be established...".

In the daily work, you can then try to interpret and discuss, what is actually "adequate"?

Hopefully, this blog can inspire the interpretations.

ASSESSOR INDEPENDENT:

The idea of complete "independence" should be substituted with the more flexible concept: "The degree of economical and organizational independence". This concept can furthermore be simplified in to whether it should be in-house or external assessment.

The in-house assessment-divisions are - due to historical reasons - organizations placed inside the large suppliers e.g. Siemens, Bombardier, Asthma, and Alcatel. Because they are organizations inside the suppliers, they have a low "degree of economical and organizational independence". Nevertheless, the Safety Authorities often allows these divisions as Assessors, because they trust the in-house assessment.

The in-house assessment-divisions have a high technical knowledge of the products,

The entire reputation of the companies depend on their integrity and

The alternative external Assessor-companies are just the same paid by the suppliers, which undermines their independence.Get Safety Course Certificate At @100Rs/--

External assessment can be performed by inspection companies like DNV, Lloyds, and Tüv, which have a high degree of economic and organizational independence, because they do not have any shareholders, but are owned by a foundation.

Another alternative could be the Advisors like Atkins, which have shareholders but still have a high degree of economic and organizational independence from the traditional railway Suppliers, Infrastructure owners, and Operators.

As a guideline to the minimum needed a degree of independence the following criteria can be used: What is the SIL-level of the products safety functions? And how complex is the Project? This interpretation is shown in the table below.