Australian vs. UK Safety Law

This post, Australian vs. UK Safety Law compares the two approaches, based on my long experience of working on both sides.



Are you a safety professional thinking of emigrating from the UK to Australia?  Well, I've done it, and here's my BREXIT special guide!  In this 45-minute video, The Safety Artisan looks at the similarities and differences between British and Australian safety practices.  This should also help Aussies thinking of heading over to work in the UK and even, dare I say it, to the EU...



https://youtu.be/lrRmSf5K2U4

"It's beginning to look a lot like BREXIT! La, La-la, la, la..."



Australian vs. UK Safety Law, Key Points



- Introduction. With BREXIT looming, British and Australian professionals may be thinking of working in each other's countries;



- Legislation. Our laws, regulations and codes of practice are quite similar;



- Guidance. Try the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) or the Safe Work Australia websites - both are excellent;



- Jurisdictions. This is complex in a federated state like Australia, so Brits need to do their homework;



- Regulators. This varies by industry/domain - many are very similar, while some are quite different;



- Cultural Issues: Australia vs. the UK. Brits and Aussies are likely to feel quite comfortable working in each other's countries; and



- Cultural Issues: Australia vs. the EU. There are some commonalities across the EU, but also dramatic differences.



Australian vs. UK Safety Law: The Transcript



Click Here for the Transcript

Comparing Australian & UK Safety Law: Topics



This is a free full-length show. I think it’s going to be about 30 minutes just to let you know; in those 30 minutes, we’re going to compare the British and Australian approaches to safety. We’re going to talk about the similarities and differences between Australian and British legislation. On the safety guidance that’s available from the various authorities the different jurisdictions in the UK and Australia. Jurisdiction is not really an issue in the UK but certainly is in Australia, so that’s something we really need to go through.



We’ll talk about regulators and the different approaches to regulation. And, finally, some cultural issues. I may mention the dreaded EU. It’s worth talking a little bit about that too because there are still significant links between the EU and the UK on how safety is done which Australians might find helpful.



Introduction



Now, where’s Michael Bublé when I need him to sing the song? It says it’s looking a lot like Brexit. With the Conservatives winning in the UK they’ve passed the Brexit act. It looks like it’s finally going to happen. Now whether you think that’s a good idea or not I’m not going to debate that, you’ll be pleased to hear – you’re sick of that, I’m sure.



There are going to be some safety professionals and other engineering professionals who were working in the EU. And who maybe won’t be able to do so easily anymore, and there might be some Brits thinking well maybe this is an opportunity. This is a prompt for me to think about moving to Australia and seeing what life is like there. Conversely, there may be Aussies seeking opportunities in the UK because if the flow of professionally qualified Engineers and so forth from the EU countries dries up or slows down then there might be more opportunity for Aussies. Indeed, the UK has been talking about introducing an Australian-style points-based immigration system. And I think we might see a favourable treaty between UK and Australia before too long.



What have I got to contribute here? I spent quite a few years in the UK as a safety engineer and safety consultant and I worked on a lot of international projects. I worked on a lot of UK procurements of American equipment. And I also worked very closely with German, Italian and Spanish colleagues on the Eurofighter Typhoon for thirteen years on and off. And I have quite a bit of experience of working in Germany and some of working with the French. I’ve got I think quite a reasonable view of different approaches to safety and how the UK differs from and is like our European counterparts.



Also, seven years ago I emigrated to Australia. I went through that points-based process, fortunately with a firm to back me up. I made the transition from doing UK-style safety to Australian-style safety.



Let’s get on with it.



Legislation #1



There are very many similarities between Australian and UK approaches to safety. Australia has learned a lot from the UK and continues to be very close to the UK in many ways, particularly in our style of law and legislation. But there are differences and I’m mainly going to talk about the differences.



First of all in the UK we’ve had the Health And Safety At Work (HSAW) Act around since 1974. That’s the executive Act that sets up the Health and Safety Executive the HSE as a regulator, gives it teeth and enables further legislation and regulations. Now if I was still in the UK, the next thing we would talk about would be in any discussion about health and safety at work would be the ‘six-pack’.



Now, these were six EU directives that the UK converted into UK regulations, as indeed all EU member states were required to. Incidentally, the UK was very successful in influencing EU safety policy, so it’s a bit ironic that their turning their back on that.  What will you find in the six-pack?



First of all, the regulations on management of health and safety at work otherwise known as HSG65 and there’s a lot of good advice in there on how to do risk management that is broadly equivalent, for an Aussie audience, to the Risk Management Code Of Practice: similar things in there that it’s trying to achieve. Then we’ve got the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations or PUWER for short. That says if you provide equipment for workers it’s got to be fit for purpose. Then there are regulations on manual handling, on workplace health safety and welfare, on personal protective equipment at work, and on the health and safety of display screen equipment of the kind that I’m using here and now (I’m sat in my EU-standard computer chair with five legs and certain mandatory adjustable settings).



Now Aussies will be sat there looking at this list thinking it looks awfully familiar. We just package them up slightly differently.



There’s also, it should be said, a separate act called the Control Of Major Accident Hazards or COMAH as it’s known. And that was introduced after the Piper Alpha disaster in the North Sea which claimed 167 lives in a single accident. That covers big installations that could cause a mass-casualty accident. So that’s the UK approach.



Legislation #2



Now the Australian approach is much simpler. The Aussies have had time to look at UK legislation, take the essentials from it and boil it down in into its essence quite cleverly. There is a single Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act, which was signed up in 2011 and came into force on the 1st of January 2012. And there are a single set of WHS Regulations that go hand in hand with the Act.



And they cover a wide spectrum of stuff. A lot of the things in the UK that you would see covered in different acts and different regulations are all covered in one place. Not only does it address, as you would expect, the workplace responsibilities of employers and employees etc., but there are also upstream duties on designers and manufacturers and suppliers and importers and so forth. The WHS act pulls all these things together quite elegantly into one.



It’s a very readable act. I have to say it’s one of the few pieces of legislation that I think a non-lawyer can read and make sense of. But you’ve got to read what it says not what you think it says (just a word of caution).  The regulations cover Major Hazard Facilities, rather like the COMAH regulations, so they’re all included as well.



It’s worth noting that Australian WHS, unlike the UK, does not differentiate between safety and security. If somebody gets hurt, then it doesn’t matter whether it is an accident or whether it was a malicious act. If it happens to a worker, then WHS covers it. And that puts obligations on employers to look after the security of workers, which is an interesting difference, as the UK law generally does not do that. We’re seeing more prosecutions (I’m told by the lawyers) for harm caused by criminal acts than we are yet seeing for safety accidents.



And that’s the act and regulations. And it’s also worth saying that Australia has a system of Codes Of Practice just as the UK has Approved Codes Of Practice. Now that’s all I’m going to say for now. There are other videos and resources on the website that go into the Act and Regulations and COP. I’m going to do a whole series on all those things, unpacking them one by one.



Legislation #3



Let’s think about exceptions for a moment because the way that the UK and Australia do exceptions in their Health and Safety legislation is slightly different. In the UK, the Health and Safety at Work Act explicitly does not apply to ships and aircraft moving under their own power. That’s quite clear. That kind of division does not occur in Australia.



Also, the UK Health and Safety Act does not apply to special forces, or to combat operations by the armed forces, or to the work up to combat operations. Again, those exclusions do not exist in Australia. And then it’s also worth saying there are many other acts enforced by the UK HSE. It’s not just about HSAW, the six-pack and COMAH. There’s a lot of regs and stuff on mining and offshore, etc., you name it. The UK is a complex economy and there are lots of historical laws. Going back up to 100 years. I think the Explosives Act was in 1898, which is still being enforced.



Now Australia has a different approach. They’ve made a clean sweep; taken a very different approach as we’ll see later. And there are only really three explicit exclusions to the Act. It says that WHS doesn’t apply to merchant ships, which are covered by the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act. So, merchant ships aren’t covered, and WHS doesn’t apply to offshore petroleum installations either. More on that later.



There is a separate act that deals with radiation protection, and that is enforced by the ARPANSA, the Australian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Protection Agency. So, a slightly different approach to what is covered and what is not; but very similar in the essentials.



Legislation #4



One of those essentials is the determination of how much safety is enough. In the UK the HSE talks about ALARP and in Australia the Act talks about SFARP. This quote here is directly from the UK HSE website. Basically, it says that ALARP and SFARP are essentially the same things. And the core concept, what is reasonably practicable, is what’s defined in the WHS Act.



Now it’s worth mentioning that the HSE say, this because it was the HSE who invented the term ALARP. If you look in UK legislation you will see the term SFARP, and you’ll see other terms like ‘all measures necessary’. There are various phrases in UK laws to say how much is enough, and the HSE said it doesn’t matter what it says in the law, the test we will use is ALARP and it covers all these things. It was always intended to be essentially the same as SFARP.



Now there is some controversy in Australia about that, and some people think that ALARP and SFARP are different. The truth is that in Australia, as in the UK, some people did ALARP badly. They did it wrong. If you do ALARP wrong, it’s not the same as SFARP, it’s different. But if you’re doing ALARP properly it is the same. Now, there are some people who will die in a ditch in order to disagree with me over that but I’m quoting you from the HSE, who invented the term to describe SFARP.



It’s also worth noting that WHS uses the term SFARP, but the offshore regulator, which is the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Agency (NOPSEMA), they use the term ALARP, because they’ve got a separate act from WHS for enforcing safety on offshore platforms. But again, even though they’re using ALARP, it’s the same as SFARP, if you look at the way that NOPSEMA explain ALARP.  They do it properly. And it matches up with SFARP, in fact, that NOPSEMA guidance is very good.



Guidance



We’ll talk more on regulators, but first a little aside and you’ll see why in a moment. Before we can get to talking about regulators, I need to tell you about where you can get guidance in Australia.



Now in the UK, you’ve got the HSE, who is the regulator and they also provide a lot of guidance. Any safety Engineer in the UK will immediately think of a document called R2P2, which is short for ‘Reducing Risk, Protecting People’. That’s an 80-something page document, in which the HSE explain their rationale for how they will enforce safety law and safety regulations and what they mean by ALARP and so on. There’s also a lot of guidance on their website as well, which is excellent and available under a Creative Commons licence so you can do an awful lot with it.



In Australia, it’s a little bit more complex than that. The WHS act was drafted by Safe Work Australia, which is a statutory agency of the government. It’s not a regulator, but it was the SWA who developed the Model WHS Act, the Model Regulations and the Model Codes Of Practice. (More on that in just a second.) It’s Safe Work Australia that provides a lot of good guidance on their website.



Most Australian regulators will refer you to legislation . We’ve got a bit of an American approach in that respect in Australia, in that you can’t do anything without a lawyer to tell you what you can and can’t do. Well, that’s the way that some government agencies seem to approach it. Sadly, they’ve lost the idea that the regulator is there to bridge the gap and explain safety to ordinary people so they can just get on with it.



Now some regulators in Australia, particularly say the New South Wales state regulator or Victorian state regulator do provide good guidance for use within their jurisdiction. The red flashing lights and the sirens should be going off at this point because we have a jurisdiction issue in Australia, and we’ll come onto that now.



Jurisdictions



In the UK, it’s reasonably simple. You’ve got the HSE for England and Wales, you’ve got the HSE for Scotland and you’ve got the HSE for Northern Ireland. They are enforcing essentially the same acts and the same regulations, right across the United Kingdom. Now there are differences in law: England and Wales have a legal system; Scotland has a slightly different legal system; then Northern Ireland has peculiarities of its own. But they’re all related. There are historical reasons why the law is different, but, from a safety point of view, all those three regulators do the same thing. And work consistently.



In Australia, it’s a bit different. Australia is a Federated Nation. We have States and Territories as you can see, we’ve got Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Within New South Wales we’ve got the ACT, that’s the Australian Capital Territory, and Canberra is the Australian Federal capital.



Most Australians live on that East Coast, down the coast of Queensland NSW and Victoria. Then we’ve got Tasmania, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. All those states and territories have and enforce their own Safety Law and Regulations.



On top of that, you’ve got a Federal approach to safety as well. Now, this will be a bit of a puzzle to Brits, but in Australia, we call the national government in Canberra ‘the Commonwealth’. Brits are used to the Commonwealth being 100+ countries that used to belong to the UK, but now they’re a club. But in Australia, the Commonwealth is the national government, the Federal Government.



Regulators #1



Let’s talk about regulators, starting at the national level. If you look at the bottom right-hand corner, we have got Comcare. They are the national regulator, who enforce WHS for The Commonwealth of Australia, all Federal workplaces, Defence, any land that’s owned by The Commonwealth, and anything where you’ve got a national system. You’ve also got some nationalised or semi-nationalised industries that effectively belong to the Commonwealth, or are set up by national regulations, and they operate to the Commonwealth version of WHS



Then you’ve got the Northern Territory, Tasmania, South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. All those states and territories have their own versions of the Model WHS Act, Regulations and COP. They’re not all identical but they’re pretty much the same. There are slight differences in the way that things are enforced, for example in South Australia there’s a couple of Codes Of Practice that Work Safe SA have said they will not enforce.



These differences don’t change the price of fish. All these regulators have their own jurisdiction, and they’re all doing more or less the same thing as Commonwealth WHS. If you start with the Model WHS Act or the Commonwealth version, then you won’t be far off what’s going on in those states and territories. However, you do have to remember that if you’re doing non-Commonwealth work in those states and territories, you’re going to be under the jurisdiction of the local state or territory regulator.



That’s the easy bit!



Unfortunately, not all states have adopted WHS yet. Western Australia (bottom left-hand corner) they are going to implement WHS but it’s not there yet. Currently, in December 2019 they’re heading towards WHS, but they’re still using their old Occupational Health and Safety (OS&H) Legislation from about 1999, I think.



Victoria has decided that they’re not going to implement WHS. Even though everybody agreed they would , they’re going to stick with their Occupational Health and Safety at work Act, which again I think dates from something like 1999. (These acts are amended and kept up to date.)  Victoria has no plans to implement WHS.



You, like me, might be thinking what a ridiculous way this is to organise yourself. We’re a nation of less than twenty-five million people, and we’ve got all this complexity about regulators and how we regulate and yes: it is daft! Model WHS was an attempt to get away from that stupidity. I have to say it’s mostly been successful, and I think we will get there one day, but that’s the situation we’ve got in Australia.



Regulators #2



Now, a quick little sample of regulators in the UK and Australia just to compare. I can’t go through them all, because there are a lot. I wanted to illustrate the similarities and differences; there are many similarities for Brits coming to Australia or Aussies going to the UK. You will find a regulatory system that in most part looks and feels familiar.



In the UK, for example, you’ve got the Civil Aviation Authority, who regulate non-military flying, airports etc; in Australia, you’ve got the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which does almost the same thing. In the UK you’ve got the Air Accident Investigation Branch, who do what their name implies; in Australia, you’ve got the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau, who also investigates air accidents (they do maritime accidents as well). By the way, the ATSB in Australia is somewhat modelled on the American ATSB, with a very similar approach to the way they do business.



Now when we get onto the maritime side, it’s quite different. In the UK, you’ve got the Maritime and Coastguard Agency or MCGA. They regulate Civil Maritime Traffic and health and safety on merchant ships; they also investigate accidents. In Australia, don’t forget we’ve got the ATSB looking at maritime accidents and publishing statistics. We’ve then got the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the AMSA, who look at the design aspects of safety of ships. (These are all national / Federal / Commonwealth regulators, by the way.)

#Australiansafetylaw #AustralianWHS #healthandsafety1daycourse #healthandsafetyforconstruction #healthsafetyatworkact1974 #healthsafetycourseonline #healthsafetygroup #healthsafetyinworkplace #healthsafetylegislation #healthsafetywork #healthsafetyworkact #UKsafetylaw #WHSCodeofPractice #whsschool #whswebsite #WorkHealthandSafety #WorkHealthandSafetyAct #WorkHealthandSafetyRegulations

Simon Di Nucci https://www.safetyartisan.com/2022/09/07/brexit-special/

System Hazard Analysis with Mil-Std-882E
In this 45-minute session, I look at System Hazard Analysis with Mil-Std-882E. SHA is Task 205 in the Standard. I explore Task 205's aim, description, scope, and contracting requirements.

I also provide commentary, based on working with this Standard since 1996, which explains SHA. How to use it to complement Sub-System Hazard Analysis (SSHA, Task 204). How to get the maximum benefits from your System Safety Program.

Using Task 205 effectively is not just a matter of applying it in number order with the other Tasks. We need to use it within the Systems Engineering framework. That means using it top-down, to set requirements, and bottom-up to verify that they are met.

https://youtu.be/F70fhSGsyLk
This is the seven-minute-long demo. The full video is 47 minutes long.

get the course 'system hazard analysis': click here

System Hazard Analysis: Topics

- Task 205 Purpose ;

- Verify subsystem compliance;

- ID hazards (subsystem interfaces and faults);

- ID hazards (integrated system design); and

- Recommend necessary actions.

- Task Description (five slides);

- Reporting;

- Contracting; and

- Commentary.

Transcript: System Hazard Analysis with Mil-Std-882E

Introduction

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Safety Artisan, where you will find professional, pragmatic, and impartial safety training resources and videos. I’m Simon, your host, and I’m recording this on the 13th of April 2020. And given the circumstances when I record this, I hope this finds you all well.

System Hazard Analysis Task 205

Let's get on to our topic for today, which is System Hazard Analysis. Now, system hazard analysis is, as you may know, Task 205 in the Mil-Std-882E system safety standard.

Topics for this Session

What we're going to cover in this session is purpose, task description, reporting, contracting, and some commentary – although I'll be making commentary all the way through. Going back to the top, the yellow highlighting with this (and with Task 204), I'm using the yellow highlighting to indicate differences between 205 and 204 because they are superficially quite similar. And then I'm using underlining to emphasize those things that I want to bring to your attention and emphasize.

Within Task 205, Purpose. We've got four purpose slides for this one. Verify subsistent compliance and recommend necessary actions – fourth one there. And then in the middle of the sandwich, we've got the identification of hazards, both between the subsystem interfaces and faults from the subsystem propagating upwards to the overall system and identifying hazards in the integrated system design. So, quite a different emphasis to 204, which was thinking about subsystems in isolation. We’ve got five slides of task description, a couple on reporting, one on contracting – nothing new there – and several commentaries.

System Requirements Hazard Analysis (T205)

Let's get straight on with it. The purpose, as we've already said, there is a three-fold purpose here; Verify system compliance, hazard identification, and recommended actions, and then, as we can see in the yellow, the identifying previously unidentified hazards is split into two. Looking at subsystem interfaces and faults and the integration of the overall system design. And you can see the yellow bit, that's different from 204 where we are taking this much higher-level view, taking an inter-subsystem view and then an integrated view.

Task Description (T205) #1

On to the task description. The contract has got to do it and document, as usual, looking at hazards and mitigations, or controls, in the integrated system design, including software and human interface. We must come onto that later.

All the usual stuff about we've got to include COTS, GOTS, GFE, and NDI. So, even if stuff is not being developed, if we're putting together a jigsaw system from existing pieces, we've still got to look at the overall thing. And as with 204, we go down to the underlined text at the bottom of the slide, areas to consider. Think about performance, and degradation of performance, functional failures, timing and design errors, defects, inadvertent functioning – that classic functional failure analysis that we've seen before.

Again, while conducting this analysis, we’ve got to include human beings as an integral component of the system, receiving inputs, and initiating outputs.  Human factors were included in this standard from long ago...

The End

You can find a free pdf of the System Safety Engineering Standard, Mil-Std-882E, here.

Learn safety engineering with me, an industry professional with 25 years of experience, I have:

•Worked on aircraft, ships, submarines, ATMS, trains, and software;

•Tiny programs to some of the biggest (Eurofighter, Future Submarine);

•In the UK and Australia, on US and European programs;

•Taught safety to hundreds of people in the classroom, and thousands online;

•Presented on safety topics at several international conferences.
#Milstd882Technique #Milstd882Training #Milstd882tutorial #Milstd882Video #MilStd882E #Milstd882eTechnique #Milstd882eTraining #Milstd882etutorial #Milstd882eVideo #SafetystandardTechnique #SafetystandardTraining #Safetystandardtutorial #SafetystandardVideo #SHA #systemhazardanalysis #systemhazardanalysisTechnique #systemhazardanalysisTraining #systemhazardanalysistutorial #systemhazardanalysisVideo #SystemsafetyengineeringTechnique #systemsafetyengineeringtraining #Systemsafetyengineeringtutorial #SystemsafetyengineeringVideo #Task205
Simon Di Nucci https://www.safetyartisan.com/?p=480

System Safety Principles

In this 45-minute video, I discuss System Safety Principles, as set out by the US Federal Aviation Authority in their System Safety Handbook. Although this was published in 2000, the principles still hold good (mostly) and are worth discussing. I comment on those topics where the modern practice has moved on, and those jurisdictions where the US approach does not sit well.



https://youtu.be/sG7D2Am5crg

This is the ten-minute preview of the full, 45-minute video.



Get the full lesson as part of the FREE Learning Triple Bundle.



System Safety Principles: Topics



- Foundational statement



- Planning



- Management Authority



- Safety Precedence



- Safety Requirements



- System Analyses Assumptions & Criteria



- Emphasis & Results



- MA Responsibilities



- Software hazard analysis



- An Effective System Safety Program



System Safety Principles: Transcript



Hello and welcome to The Safety Artisan where you will find professional pragmatic and impartial educational products. I’m Simon and it’s the 3rd of November 2019. Tonight I’m going to be looking at a short introduction to System Safety Principles.



Introduction



On to system safety principles; in the full video we look at all principles from the U.S. Federal Aviation Authority’s System Safety Handbook but in this little four- or five-minute video – whatever it turns out to be – we’ll take a quick look just to let you know what it’s about.



Topics for this Session



These are the subjects in the full session. Really a fundamental statement; we talk about planning; talk about the management authority (which is the body that is responsible for bringing into existence -in this case- some kind of aircraft or air traffic control system, something like that, something that the FAA would be the regulator for in the US).



We talk about safety precedents. In other words, what’s the most effective safety control to use. Safety requirements; system analyses – which are highlighted because that’s just the sample I’m going to talk about, tonight; assumptions and safety criteria; emphasis and results – which is really about how much work you put in where and why; management authority responsibilities; a little aside of a specialist area – software hazard analysis; And finally, what you need for an effective System Safety Program.



Now, it’s worth mentioning that this is not an uncritical look at the FAA handbook. It is 19 years old now so the principles are still good, but some of it’s a bit long in the tooth. And there are some areas where, particularly on software, things have moved on. And there are some areas where the FAA approach to system safety is very much predicated on an American approach to how these things are done.  



Systems Analysis



So, without further ado, let’s talk about system analysis. There are two points that the Handbook makes. First of all, these analyses are basic tools for systematically developing design specifications. Let’s unpack that statement. So, the analyses are tools- they’re just tools. You’ve still got to manage safety. You’ve still got to estimate risk and make decisions- that’s absolutely key. The system analyses are tools to help you do that. They won’t make decisions for you. They won’t exercise authority for you or manage things for you. They’re just tools.



Secondly, the whole point is to apply them systematically. So, coverage is important here- making sure that we’ve covered the entire system. And also doing things in a thorough and orderly fashion. That’s the systematic bit about it.



And then finally, it’s about developing design specifications. Now, this is where the American emphasis comes in. But before we talk about that, it’s fundamental to note that really we need to work out what our safety requirements are.



What are we Trying to Achieve?



What are we trying to achieve here with safety? And why? These are really important concepts because if you don’t know what you’re trying to achieve then it will be very difficult to get there and to demonstrate that you’ve got there - which is kind of the point of safety. Putting effort into getting the requirements right is very important because without doing that first step all your other work could be invalid. In my experience of 20-plus years in the business, if you don’t have a precise grasp of what you’re trying to achieve then you’re going to waste a lot of time and money, probably.



So, onto the second bullet point. Now the handbook says that the ultimate measure of safety is not the scope of analysis but in satisfying requirements. So, the first part – very good. We’re not doing analysis for the sake of it. That’s not the measure of safety – that we’ve analyzed something to death or that we’ve expended vast amounts of dollars on doing this work but that we’ve worked out the requirements and the analysis has helped us to meet them. That is the key point.



Safety in Different Jurisdictions



This is where it can go slightly pear-shaped in that this emphasis on requirements (almost to the exclusion of anything else) is a very U.S.-centric way of doing things. So, very much in the US, the emphasis is you meet the spec, you certify that you’ve met spec and therefore we’re safe. But of course what if the spec is wrong? Or what if it’s just plain inappropriate for a new use of an existing system or whatever it might be?



In other jurisdictions, notably the U.K. (and as you can tell from my accent that’s where I’m from, I’ve got a lot of experience doing safety work in the U.K. but also Australia where I now live and work) it’s not about meeting requirements. Well, it is but let me explain. In the UK and Australia, English law works on the idea of intent.



So, we aim to make something safe: not whether it has that it’s necessarily met requirements or not, that doesn’t really matter so much, but is the risk actually reduced to an acceptable level? There are tests for deciding what is acceptable. Have you complied with the law? The law outside the US can take a very different approach to “it’s all about the specification”.



Not Just the Specification



Of course, those legal requirements and that requirement to reduce risk to an acceptable level, are, in themselves, requirements. But in Australian or British legal jurisdiction, you need to think about those legal requirements as well. They must be part of your requirements set.



So, just having a specification for a technical piece of cake that ignores the requirements of the law, which include not only design requirements but the thing is actually safe in service and can be safely introduced, used, disposed of, etc. If you don’t take those things into account you may not meet all your obligations under that system of law.



So, there’s an important point to understanding and using American standards and an American approach to system safety out of the assumed context. And that’s true of all standards and all approaches but it’s a point I bring out in the main video quite forcefully because it’s very important to understand.



Get the full lesson as part of the FREE Learning Triple Bundle.



Meet the Author



Learn safety engineering with me, an industry professional with 25 years of experience, I have:



•Worked on aircraft, ships, submarines, ATMS, trains, and software;



•Tiny programs to some of the biggest (Eurofighter, Future Submarine);



•In the UK and Australia, on US and European programs;



•Taught safety to hundreds of people in the classroom, and thousands online;



•Presented on safety topics at several international conferences.

#coursesafetyengineering #engineersafety #FederalAviationAdministration #ineedsafety #knowledgeofsafety #learnsafety #needforsafety #safetyblog #safetydo #safetyengineer #safetyengineerskills #safetyengineertraining #safetyengineeringcourse #safetyprinciples #softwaresafety #systemsafety #systemsafetyengineering #systemsafetyhandbook #systemsafetyprinciples #theneedforsafety

Simon Di Nucci https://www.safetyartisan.com/2022/08/17/in-full-system-safety-principles/

Safety Concepts Part 2

In this 33-minute session, Safety Concepts Part 2, The Safety Artisan equips you with more Safety Concepts. I look at the basic concepts of safety, risk, and hazard in order to understand how to assess and manage them.



Exploring these fundamental topics provides the foundations for all other safety topics, but it doesn't have to be complex. The basics are simple, but they need to be thoroughly understood and practiced consistently to achieve success. This video explains the issues and discusses how to achieve that success.



https://youtu.be/TBaS32cWsRg

Highlights of Safety Concepts, Part 2 video.



Get the full-length Lesson as part of the FREE Triple Learning Bundle.



Safety Concepts Part 2: Topics



- Risk & Harm;



- Accident & Accident Sequence;



- (Cause), Hazard, Consequence & Mitigation;



- Requirements / Essence of System Safety;



- Hazard Identification & Analysis;



- Risk Reduction / Estimation;



- Risk Evaluation & Acceptance;



- Risk Management & Safety Management; and



- Safety Case & Report.



Safety Concepts Part 2: Transcript



Click Here for the Transcript

Hi everyone, and welcome to the safety artisan where you will find professional, pragmatic, and impartial advice on safety. I’m Simon, and welcome to the show today, which is recorded on the 23rd of September 2019. Today we’re going to talk about system safety concepts. A couple of days ago I recorded a short presentation (Part 1) on this, which is also on YouTube.  Today we are going to talk about the same concepts but in much more depth.



In the short session, we took some time picking apart the definition of ‘safe’. I’m not going to duplicate that here, so please feel free to go have a look. We said that to demonstrate that something was safe, we had to show that risk had been reduced to a level that is acceptable in whatever jurisdiction we’re working in.



And in this definition, there are a couple of tests that are appropriate that the U.K., but perhaps not elsewhere. We also must meet safety requirements. And we must define the Scope and bound the system that we’re talking about a Physical system or an intangible system like a computer program. We must define what we’re doing with it and what it’s being used for. And within which operating environment within which context is being used.  And if we could do all those things, then we can objectively say - or claim - that the system is safe.



Topics



We’re going to talk about a lot more Topics. We’re going to talk about risk accidents. The cause has a consequence sequence. They talk about requirements and. Spoiler alert. What I consider to be the essence of system safety. And then we’ll get into talking about the process. Of demonstrating safety, hazard identification, and analysis.



Risk Reduction and estimation. Risk Evaluation. And acceptance. And then pulling it all together. Risk management safety management. And finally, reporting, making an argument that the system is safe supporting with evidence. And summarizing all of that in a written report. This is what we do, albeit in different ways and calling it different things.



Risk



Onto the first topic. Risk and harm.  Our concept of risk. It’s a combination of the likelihood and severity of harm. Generally, we’re talking about harm. To people. Death. Injury. Damage to help. Now we might also choose to consider any damage to property in the environment. That’s all good. But I’m going to concentrate on harm to people. Because usually, that’s what we’re required to do. By the law. And there are other laws covering the environment and property sometimes. That. We’re not going to talk.  just to illustrate this point. This risk is a combination of Severity and likelihood.



We’ve got a very crude. Risk table here. With a likelihood along the top. And severity. Downside. And we might. See that by looking at the table if we have a high likelihood and high severity. Well, that’s a high risk. Whereas if we have Low Likelihood and low severity. We might say that’s a low risk. And then. In between, a combination of high and low we might say that’s medium. Now, this is a very crude and simple example. Deliberately.



You will see risk matrices like this. In. Loads of different standards. And you may be required to define your own for a specific system, there are lots of variations on this but they’re all basically. Doing this thing and we’re illustrating. How do we determine the level of risk. By that combination of severity. And likely, I think a picture is worth a thousand words. Moving online to the accident. We’re talking about (in this standard) an unintended event that causes harm.



Accidents, Sequences and Consequences



Not all jurisdictions just consider accidental events, some consider deliberate harm as well. We’ll leave that out. A good example of that is work health and safety in Australia but no doubt we’ll get to that in another video sometime. And the accident sequences the progression of events. That results in an accident that leads to an. Now we’re going to illustrate the accident sequence in a moment but before we get there. We need to think about cousins.  here we’ve got a hazardous physical situation or state of a system. Often following some initiating event that may lead to an accident, a thing that may cause harm.



And then allied with that we have the idea of consequences. Of outcomes or an outcome. Resulting from. An. Event. Now that all sounds a bit woolly doesn’t it, let’s illustrate that. Hopefully, this will make it a lot clearer. Now. I’ve got a sequence here. We have. Causes. That might lead to a hazard. And the hazard might lead to different consequences. And that’s the accident. See. Now in this standard, they didn’t explicitly define causes.



Cause, Hazard, and Consequence



They’re just called events. But most mostly we will deal with causes and consequences in system safety. And it’s probably just easier to implement it. Whether or not you choose to explicitly address every cause. That’s often an optional step. But this is the accident Sequence that we’re looking at. These sorts of funnels are meant to illustrate the fact that they may be many causes for one hazard. And one has it may lead to many consequences on some of those consequences. Maybe. No harm at all.



We may not actually have an accident. We may get away with it. We may have a. Hazard. And. Know no harm may befall a human. And if we take all of this together that’s the accident sequence. Now it’s worth reiterating that just because a hazard exists, it does not necessarily lead to harm. But to get to harm, we must have a hazard; a hazard is both necessary and sufficient. To lead to harmful consequences. OK.



Hazards: an Example



And you can think of a hazard as an accident waiting to happen. You can think of it in lots of different ways, let’s think about an example, the hazard might be. Somebody slips. Okay well while walking and all. That slip might be caused by many things it might be a wet surface. Let’s say it’s been raining, and the pavement is slippery, or it might be icy. It might be a spillage of oil on a surface, or you’d imagine something slippery like ball bearings on a surface.



So, there’s something that’s caused the surface to become slippery. A person slips – that’s the hazard. Now the person may catch themselves; they may not fall over. They may suffer no injury at all. Or they might fall and suffer a slight injury; and, very occasionally, they might suffer a severe injury. It depends on many different factors. You can imagine if you slipped while going downstairs, you’re much more likely to be injured.



And younger, healthy, fit people are more likely to get over a fall without being injured, whereas if they’re very elderly and frail, a fall can quite often result in a broken bone. If an elderly person breaks a bone in a fall the chances of them dying within the next 12 months are quite high. They’re about one in three.



So, the level of risk is sensitive to a lot of different factors. To get an accurate picture, an accurate estimate of risk, we’re going to need to factor in all those things. But before we get to that, we’ve already said that hazards need not lead to harm. In this standard, we call it an incident, where a hazard has occurred; it could have progressed to an accident but didn’t, we call this an incident. A near miss.



We got away with it. We were lucky. Whatever you want to call it. We’ve had an incident but no he’s been hurt. Hopefully, that incident is being reported, which will help us to prevent an actual accident in the future.  That’s another very useful concept that reminds us that not all hazards result in harm. Sometimes there will be no accident. There will be no harm simply because we were lucky, or because someone present took some action to prevent harm to themselves or others.



Mitigation Strategies (Controls)



But we would really like to deliberately design out or avoid Hazards if we can. What we need is a mitigation strategy, we need a measure or measures that, when we put them into practice, reduce that risk. Normally, we call these things controls. Again, now we’ve illustrated this; we’ve added to the funnels. We’ve added some mitigation strategies and they are the dark blue dashed lines.



And they are meant to represent Barriers that prevent the accident sequence from progressing towards harm. And they have dashed lines because very few controls are perfect, you know everything’s got holes in it. And we might have several of them. But usually, no control will cover all possible causes, and very few controls will deal with all possible consequences.  That’s what those barriers are meant to illustrate.



That idea that picture will be very useful to us later. When we are thinking about how we’re going to estimate and evaluate risk overall and what risk reduction we have achieved. And how we talk about justifying what we’ve done is good. That’s a very powerful illustration. Well, let’s move on to safety requirements.



Safety Requirements



Now. I guess it’s no great surprise to say that requirements, once met, can contribute directly to the safety of the system. Maybe we’ve got a safety requirement that says all cars will be fitted with seatbelts. Let’s say we’ll be required to wear a seatbelt.  That makes the system safer.



Or the requirement might be saying we need to provide evidence of the safety of the system. And, the requirement might refer to a process that we’ve got to go through or a set kind of evidence that we’ve got to provide. Safety requirements can cover either or both of these.



The Essence of System Safety



Requirements. Covering. Safety of the system or demonstrating that the system is safe. Should give us assurance, which is adequate confidence or justified confidence. Supported with evidence by following a process. And we’ll talk more about the process. We meet safety requirements. We get assurance that we’ve done the right thing. And this really brings us to the essence of what system safety is, we’ve got all these requirements – everything is a requirement really – including the requirement. To demonstrate risk reduction.



And those requirements may apply to the system itself, the product. Or they may provide, or they may apply to the process that generates the evidence or the evidence. Putting all those things together in an organized and orderly way really is the essence of system safety, this is where we are addressing safety in a systematic way, in an orderly way. In an organized way. (Those words will keep coming back). That’s the essence of system safety, as opposed to the day-to-day task of keeping a workplace safe.



Maybe by mopping up spills and providing handrails, so people don’t slip over. Things like that. We’re talking about a more sophisticated level of safety. Because we have a more complex problem a more challenging problem to deal with. That’s system safety. We will start on the process now, and we begin with hazard identification and analysis; first, we need to identify and list the hazards, the Hazards and accidents associated with the system.



We’ve got a system, physical or not. What could go wrong? We need to think about all the possibilities. And then having identified some hazards we need to start doing some analysis, we follow a process. That helps us to delve into the detail of those hazards and accidents. And to define and understand the accident sequences that could result. In fact, in doing the analysis we will very often identify some more hazards that we hadn’t thought of before, it’s not a straight-through process it tends to be an iterative process.



Risk Reduction



And ultimately what we’re trying to do is reduce risk, we want a systematic process, which is what we’re describing now. A systematic process of reducing risk. And at some point, we must estimate the risk that we’re left with. Before and after all these controls, these mitigations, are applied. That’s risk estimation.  Again, there’s that systematic word, we’re going to use all the available information to estimate the level of risk that we’ve got left. Recalling that risk is a combination of severity and likelihood.



Now as we get towards the end of the process, we need to evaluate risk against set criteria. And those criteria vary depending on which country you’re operating in or which industry we’re in: what regulations apply and what good practice is relevant. All those things can be a factor. Now, in this case, this is a U.K. standard, so we’ve got two tests for evaluating risk. It’s a systematic determination using all the available evidence. And it should be an objective evaluation as far as we can make it.



Risk Evaluation



We should use certain criteria on whether a risk can be accepted or not. And in the U.K. there are two tests for this. As we’ve said before, there is ALARP, the ‘As Low As is Reasonably Practicable’ test, which says: Have we put into practice all reasonably practicable controls? (To reduce risk, this is a risk reduction target). And then there’s an absolute level of risk to consider as well. Because even if we’ve taken all practical measures, the risk remaining might still be so high as to be unacceptable to the law.



Now that test is specific to the U.K, so we don’t have to worry too much about it. The point is there are objective criteria, which we must test ourselves or measure ourselves against. An evaluation that will pop out the decision, as to whether a further risk reduction is necessary if the risk level is still too high. We might conclude that are still reasonably practicable measures that we could take. Then we’ve got to do it.



We have an objective decision-making process to say: have we done enough to reduce risk? And if not, we need to do some more until we get to the point where we can apply the test again and say yes, we’ve done enough. Right, that’s rather a long-winded way of explaining that. I apologize, but it is a key issue and it does trip up a lot of people.



Risk Acceptance



Now, once we’ve concluded that we’ve done enough to reduce risk and no further risk reduction is necessary, somebody should be in a position to accept that risk.  Again, it’s a systematic process, by which relevant stakeholders agree that risks may be accepted. In other words, somebody with the right authority has said yes, we’re going to go ahead with the system and put it into practice, implement it. The resulting risks to people are acceptable, providing we apply the controls.



And we accept that responsibility.  Those people who are signing off on those risks are exposing themselves and/or other people to risk. Usually, they are employees, but sometimes members of the public as well, or customers. If you’re going to put customers in an airliner you’re saying yes there is a level of risk to passengers, but that the regulator, or whoever, has deemed to be acceptable. It’s a formal process to get those risks accepted and say yes, we can proceed. But again, that varies greatly between different countries, between different industries. Depending on what regulations and laws and practices apply. (We’ll talk about different applications in another section.)



Risk Management



Now putting all this together we call this risk management.  Again, that wonderful systematic word: a systematic application of policies, procedures, and practices to these tasks. We have hazard identification, analysis, risk estimation, risk evaluation, risk reduction & risk acceptance. It’s helpful to demonstrate that we’ve got a process here, where we go through these things in order. Now, this is a simplified picture because it kind of implies that you just go through the process once.



With a complex system, you go through the process at least once. We may identify further hazards when we get into Hazard Analysis and estimating risk. In the process of trying to do those things, even as late as applying controls and getting to risk acceptance. We may discover that we need to do additional work. We may try and apply controls and discover the controls that we thought were going to be effective are not effective.



Our evaluation of the level of risk and its acceptability is wrong because it was based on the premise that controls would be effective, and we’ve discovered that they’re not, so we must go back and redo some work. Maybe as we go through, we even discover Hazards that we hadn’t anticipated before. This can and does happen, it’s not necessarily a straight-through process. We can iterate through this process. Perhaps several times, while we are moving forward.



Safety Management



OK, Safety Management. We’ve gone to a higher level really than risk because we’re thinking about requirements as well as risk. We’re going to apply organization, we’re going to apply management principles to achieve safety with high confidence. For the first time, we’ve introduced this idea of confidence in what we’re doing. Well, I say the first time, this is insurance isn’t it? Assurance, having justified confidence, or appropriate confidence because we’ve got the evidence. And that might be product evidence too we might have tested the product to show that it’s safe.



We might have analyzed it. We might have said well we’ve shown that we follow the process that gives us confidence that our evidence is good. And we’ve done all the right things and identified all the risks.  That’s safety management. We need to put that in a safety management system, we’ve got a defined organizational structure, and we have defined processes, procedures, and methods. That gives us direction and control of all the activities that we need to put together in combination to effectively meet safety requirements and safety policy.



And our safety tests, whatever they might be. More and more now we’re thinking about top-level organization and planning to achieve the outcomes we need. With a complex system, a complex operating environment, and a complex application.



Safety Planning



Now I’ll just mention planning. Okay, we need a safety management plan that defines the strategy: how we’re going to get there, how are we going to address safety. We need to document that safety management system for a specific project. Planning is very important for effective safety. Safety is very vulnerable to poor planning. If a project is badly planned or not planned at all, it becomes very difficult to Do safety effectively, because we are dependent on the process, on following a rigorous process to give us confidence that all results are correct.  If you’ve got a project that is a bit haphazard, that’s not going to help you achieve the objectives.



Planning is important. Now the bit of that safety plan that deals with timescales, milestones, and other date-related information. We might refer to it as a safety program. Now being a UK Definition, British English has two spellings of program. The double-m-e-version of programme.

#10basicprinciplesofsafety #5digitalsafetyrules #basicprinciplesofsafety #defstan0056 #defencestandard0056 #differencebetweensafeandsafety #Safetyconcept #safetyconcepts #safetydefinitioninenglish #safetydefinitioninnebosh #safetyengineering #safetyofprincipaldefinition #safetyprinciple #safetyprinciplesandpractices #systemsafetyconcepts #systemsafetytraining #whatarethe3principlesofsafety

Simon Di Nucci https://www.safetyartisan.com/2022/08/03/system-safety-concepts-full-version/

Hazard Logs - a Brief Summary

In Hazard Logs - a Brief Summary, we will give you an overview of this important safety management tool. This post serves as an introduction to longer posts and videos (e.g. Hazard Logs & Hazard Tracking Systems), which will provide you with much more content.



Hazard Logs - a Brief Summary



Description of Hazard Log



A Hazard Log is a continually updated record of the Hazards, Accident Sequences, and Accidents associated with a system. It includes information documenting risk management for each Hazard and Accident.



The Hazard Log is a structured means of storing and referencing Safety Risk Evaluations and other information relating to a piece of equipment or system. It is the principal means of tracking the status of all identified Hazards, decisions made and actions undertaken to reduce risks. It should be used to facilitate oversight by the Project Safety Committee and other stakeholders.



The Hazards, Accident Sequences, and Accidents recorded are those which could conceivably occur, as well as those which have already been experienced. The term Hazard Log may be seen as misleading since the information stored relates to the entire Safety Programme and covers Accidents, Controls, Risk Evaluation, and ALARP/SFARP justification, as well as data on Hazards.



Operation



The Hazard Log is maintained by a Hazard Log Administrator, who is responsible to the Project Safety Engineer/Manager. The Hazard Log Administrator has primary access to the Hazard Log allowing him/her to add, edit or close data records. All other personnel requiring access to the Hazard Log are normally allowed read-only access. This allows for visibility of Hazards to all but limits the control/administration of data records to the Hazard Log Administrator.



Records can be tracked by the use of a status field. This, for example, identifies whether the record has just been opened, is awaiting confirmation of mitigation actions, or is ALARP/SFARP.



It is best practice for the Hazard Log to record each Hazard as “open” and for ALARP/SFARP arguments to be provisional until all mitigation actions are confirmed to be satisfactorily completed. An example is where the mitigation depends upon the production of an operational procedure that may not be written until well after the Hazard is first identified in the early stages of design or construction.



Hazards should not be deleted from the Hazard Log, but closed and marked as “out of scope” or “not considered credible”, together with appropriate justification. Where such Hazards are no longer considered relevant to the system, the Log entry should be updated to reflect this.



Application



In general, the Hazard Log should relate to a specified system and record its scope of use, together with the safety requirements. When Hazards are identified, the Hazard Log should show how these Hazards were evaluated and note the resulting residual risk assessment; the Hazard Log should then record any recommendations for further action to mitigate the Hazards, or formally document acceptance of the Hazards and any ALARP/SFARP justification.



Since a Hazard Log is a structured way of storing and referencing data and records on Hazards, documenting the Risk Evaluation and other information relating to a piece of equipment or system, clear cross-referencing to supporting documentation is essential. The supporting documentation can be either directly embedded or cross-referenced within the Hazard Log.



When it Might be Used



A Hazard Log should be established for all projects. This will allow full traceability of the formal decision process which would justify the assessed level of Safety Risk.



The Hazard Log is established at the earliest stage of the program and should be maintained throughout the system life cycle as a “live” document or database. As changes are integrated into the system, the Hazard Log should be updated to incorporate added or modified Hazards and the associated residual risks noted to reflect the current design standard.



It is essential that the Hazard Log is reviewed at regular intervals, to ensure that Hazards are being managed appropriately and enable robust safety arguments in the Safety Case to be established.



Advantages, Disadvantages, and Limitations



Advantages 



The Hazard Log contains the traceable record of the Hazard Management process for the Project and therefore:



- Ensures that the Project Safety Programme uses a consistent set of Safety information;

- Facilitates oversight by the Safety Panel and other stakeholders of the current status of the Safety activities;

- Supports the effective management of possible Hazards and Accidents so that the associated Risks are brought up to and maintained at a tolerable level;

- Provides traceability of Safety decisions made.



Disadvantages 



- The relationship between Hazards, Accidents, and their management through setting and meeting Safety Requirements could be included within the Hazard Log. However, if it is not sufficiently robust or well-structured, this may obscure the identification and clearance of Hazards;

- If Hazards are not well defined when they are entered into the Hazard Log, then the rigor enforced by the need for a clear audit trail of changes made may make it very difficult to maintain the Hazard and Accident records in the most effective way. An appropriate structure should therefore be designed and agreed upon before data entry starts.



Comments



A Hazard Log can be produced in any format, but an electronic format is the most common, as this tends to provide the quickest means of cross-referring and providing traceability through the Hazard Log. A paper-based Hazard Log would have limitations for most defense Systems as it would become large, staff-intensive, and cumbersome as the System developed. This in turn introduces a significant maintenance overhead for a project.



The electronic form of the Hazard Log can be developed using Database development tools like Microsoft Access or SQL Server. Alternatively, you can use an existing application such as DOORS. Alternatively, it can be completed in a simple spreadsheet package such as Microsoft Excel. The UK Ministry of Defence’s preferred Hazard Log tool was Cassandra, a proprietary Database based upon Microsoft Access.  (We will use Cassandra as an example in another blog post.)



A bespoke Database enables the originator to custom define fields appropriate to the System. Conversely, a proprietary tool allows for a consistent and standardized approach across a range of programs. A bespoke system may be relatively simple to administer and manipulate, whereas a proprietary tool may require external training. Widespread use of different bespoke solutions may become unmanageable.



Sources of Additional Information



Additional guidance on the Hazard Log can be found within the following references: MoD’s Project-Oriented Safety Management System – procedure SMP11 - Hazard Log.  An example Hazard Log structure is also presented there.



Copyright Acknowledgement



In this article, I have used material from a UK Ministry of Defence guide. It is reproduced under the terms of the UK’s Open Government Licence.



Hazard Logs - a Brief Summary: Ask Me Anything!

#hazardcontrollog #hazardlogexample #hazardlogform #hazardmonitoringsystem #hazardtracking #hazardtrackinglog #hazardtrackingsystemtemplate #howmanyhazardcategoriesarethere #riskmanagementtrackingtools #risktrackingandreporting #risktrackinginprojectmanagement #risktrackingprocess #risktrackingsoftware #whatisahazardlog

Simon Di Nucci https://www.safetyartisan.com/2022/07/20/hazard-logs-a-brief-summary/

Australian WHS Course

In this Australian WHS Course, we show you how to practically and pragmatically implement the essential elements of Australian Work Health and Safety Legislation. In particular, we look at the so-called 'upstream' WHS duties. These are the elements you need to safely introduce systems and services into the Australian market.



Lessons in This Course



A Guide to the Australian WHS Act



Image by Wendy Van Zyl, from Pexels



This Guide to the WHS Act covers many topics of interest to system safety and design safety specialists, this full-length video covers key sections (§) of the Act:



- § 3, Object ;



- § 4-8, Definitions;



- § 12A, Exclusions;



- § 18, Reasonably Practicable;



- § 19, Primary Duty of Care;



- § 22-26, Duties of Designers, Manufacturers, Importers, Suppliers & those who Install/Construct/Commission;



- § 27, Officers & Due Diligence;



- § 46-49, Consult, Cooperate & Coordinate;



- § 152, Function of the Regulator; and



- § 274-276, WHS Regulations and CoP.



The Consultation, Cooperation & Coordination Code of Practice



Photo by August de Richelieu from Pexels.com



In this 30-minute session, we look at the Consultation, Cooperation & Coordination Code of Practice (CC&C CoP). We cover the Commonwealth and Model versions of the CoP, appendices & a summary of detailed requirements; and further commentary. This CoP is one of the two that are generally applicable.



Topics:



- CC&C in the Federal or Commonwealth CoP;



- Extra CC&C in the Model CoP;



- (Watch out for Jurisdiction);



- Further commentary; and



- Where to get more information.



The Risk Management CoP



Photo by Marta Branco from Pexels



In this 40-minute session, we look at the Risk Management Code of Practice (CoP). We cover: who has WHS duties; the four-step process; keeping records, appendices & a summary of detailed requirements; and further commentary. This CoP is the other one of the two that are generally applicable.



Topics:



- Who has WHS duties;



- The four-step process;



- Keeping records, appendices & summary of detailed requirements;



- Further commentary; and



- Where to get more information.



Safe Design



Karolina Grabowska STAFFAGE from Pexels



Want some good guidance on Safe Design? In this 52-minute video from the Safety Artisan, you will find it. We take the official guidance from Safe Work Australia and provide a value-added commentary on it. The guidance integrates seamlessly with Australian law and regulations, but it is genuinely useful in any jurisdiction.



Topics:



- A safe design approach;



- Five principles of safe design;



- Ergonomics and good work design;



- Responsibility for safe design;



- Product lifecycle;



- Benefits of safe design;



- Legal obligations; and



- Our national approach.



How to Demonstrate SFARP



Photo by Sondre Dahl from Pexels.com



So our learning objectives for this session at the end of this session, you should understand the SFARP concept: what it’s all about. You should understand the variety of techniques that are available to you. Most importantly, you will be able to apply these techniques in the correct order, because that’s important in the real world.



Topics



- Introduction – Reasonably Practicable;



- How to SFARP with:



- Codes, Standards & Regulations; and



- Controls, or groups of controls.



- Some practical hints on good practice;



- Examples; and



- Source information.



These lessons sell for $45 USD each, but you can get a 20% discount here. (You can get a bigger discount by subscribing to our mailing list!)

#demonstrateSFARP #reasonablypracticable #reasonablypracticablecaselaw #reasonablypracticabledefinition #reasonablypracticablehealthandsafety #reasonablypracticablemeaning #reasonablypracticablewhs #sfairp #sfairphealthandsafety #SFARP #sfarpsafety #showSFARP #whatdoesreasonablypracticablemean #whatisthebesthealthandsafetycoursetodo #whatisthepurposeofwhs #whsclasses #Whscourse #whscourseonline #whscourses #whstrainingformanagers

Simon Di Nucci https://www.safetyartisan.com/2022/07/06/australian-whs-course/