曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
a similar meaning.
While the documentation of the safety assessment is listed here as the last step, a significant amount of the
documentation will already have been produced during the previous steps.
In addition to describing the outcome of the safety assessment, the documentation should contain a
summary of the methods used, the hazards identified, and mitigation measures which are required to meet
the safety assessment criteria. The hazard log should always be included. The documentation should be
prepared in sufficient detail so that anyone reading it will be able to see not just what decisions were
reached, but what the justification was for classifying risks as acceptable or tolerable. It should also include
the names of the personnel involved in the assessment process.
The individual who is responsible for ensuring that safety assessment is undertaken and for signing the final
acceptance of the safety assessment will vary depending on the size and complexity of the project, and the
policy of the organization. In some cases it will be the project manager. Where no project manager has been
appointed, it could be the line manager who is responsible for the system concerned. In some organizations,
the acceptance may require the approval of a higher level of management in cases where the residual risk
cannot be reduced to the acceptable level, but is to be accepted as tolerable and ALARP.
The signing of the safety assessment documentation by the responsible manager, to indicate acceptance, is
the final action in the assessment process.
— — — — — — — —
13-APP 1-1
Appendix 1 to Chapter 13
GUIDANCE ON THE CONDUCT OF
GROUP HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND
ASSESSMENT SESSIONS
1. THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSMENT GROUP
1.1 It is usually best to initiate the assessment process in a group session, involving representatives of
the various organizations concerned with the specification, development and use of the system. The
interactions between participants with varying experience and knowledge tend to lead to a broader, more
comprehensive and balanced consideration of safety issues than if the assessment is conducted by an
individual.
1.2 While group sessions are usually good at generating ideas, identifying issues and making an initial
assessment, they do not always produce these outputs in a logical order. Also, it is difficult for a group to
analyse the ideas and issues in detail — it is hard to consider all the implications and interrelationships
between issues when these have only just been raised. It is therefore recommended that:
a) the group session be used to generate ideas and undertake preliminary assessment only;
b) the findings be collated and analysed after the session. One or two individuals with sufficient
breadth of expertise to understand all the issues raised, and a good appreciation of the purposes of
the assessment should do this; and
c) the collated results be fed back to the group to check that the analysis has correctly interpreted their
input and to provide an opportunity to reconsider any aspects once the “whole picture” can be seen.
2. ASSESSMENT SESSION PARTICIPANTS
The sessions need to involve representatives of all the main parties with an interest in the system and its
safety. Typically, a session should involve:
a) System users — those primary user groups most directly involved in order to assess the
consequences of failure(s) from an operational perspective (e.g. ATCOs and flight crew);
b) System technical experts to explain the system purpose, interfaces and functions;
c) Safety and Human Factors experts to guide in the application of the methodology and to bring
wider understanding of the causes and effects of hazards;
d) A “moderator” or “facilitator” to lead and control the session; and
13-APP 1-2 Safety Management Manual (SMM)
e) A meeting secretary to record the findings and assist the facilitator in ensuring that all aspects
have been covered.
3. SESSION PSYCHOLOGY
3.1 Some consideration of the individual and group psychology involved in the assessment session is
helpful in understanding how to run a successful session. The mental processes required in order to
produce the desired outputs can be categorized under two broad kinds of thinking:
a) Creative (inductive) thinking. This is important in the identification of failure(s), sequence of
events and the hazards that may result. The basic type of question being asked is: “What could go
wrong?”
b) Judgemental (deductive) thinking. This is important in classifying the severity of hazards and in
setting the safety objectives. The basic question is: “How severe are the effects of this sequence of
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
Safety Management Manual (SMM) 安全管理手册(91)
