Talk:Hazard analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[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)