IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v191y2019ics0951832018304782.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of safety architectures in aviation safety cases

Author

Listed:
  • Denney, Ewen
  • Pai, Ganesh
  • Whiteside, Iain

Abstract

We develop a notion of safety architecture (SA), based on an extension to Bow Tie Diagrams (BTDs), to characterize the overall scope of the mitigation measures undertaken to provide safety assurance at both design time and during operations. We motivate the need for SAs, whilst also illustrating their application and utility in the context of aviation systems, through an example based upon a safety case for an unmanned aircraft system mission that successfully underwent regulatory scrutiny. We elaborate how SAs fit into our overall safety assurance methodology, also discussing the key role they play in conjunction with structured assurance arguments to provide a more comprehensive basis for the associated safety case. We give a formal semantics as a basis for implementing both BTDs and SAs in our assurance case tool, AdvoCATE, describing the functionality afforded to support both the related safety analysis and subsequent development activities, e.g., enforcement of well-formedness properties, computation of residual risk, and model-based views and transformations.

Suggested Citation

  • Denney, Ewen & Pai, Ganesh & Whiteside, Iain, 2019. "The role of safety architectures in aviation safety cases," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:191:y:2019:i:c:s0951832018304782
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832018304782
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106502?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duijm, Nijs Jan, 2009. "Safety-barrier diagrams as a safety management tool," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 332-341.
    2. Rae, Andrew & Alexander, Rob & McDermid, John, 2014. "Fixing the cracks in the crystal ball: A maturity model for quantitative risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 67-81.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Khastgir, Siddartha & Brewerton, Simon & Thomas, John & Jennings, Paul, 2021. "Systems Approach to Creating Test Scenarios for Automated Driving Systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    2. Chelouati, Mohammed & Boussif, Abderraouf & Beugin, Julie & El Koursi, El-Miloudi, 2023. "Graphical safety assurance case using Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) — challenges, opportunities and a framework for autonomous trains," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    3. Dai, Wei & Quek, Zhi Hao & Low, Kin Huat, 2024. "Probabilistic modeling and reasoning of conflict detection effectiveness by tracking systems towards safe urban air mobility operations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lewis, Austin D. & Groth, Katrina M., 2022. "Metrics for evaluating the performance of complex engineering system health monitoring models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    2. Casson Moreno, Valeria & Guglielmi, Daniele & Cozzani, Valerio, 2018. "Identification of critical safety barriers in biogas facilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 81-94.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    4. Sujan, Mark A. & Habli, Ibrahim & Kelly, Tim P. & Gühnemann, Astrid & Pozzi, Simone & Johnson, Christopher W., 2017. "How can health care organisations make and justify decisions about risk reduction? Lessons from a cross-industry review and a health care stakeholder consensus development process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-11.
    5. Khakzad, Nima & Khan, Faisal & Amyotte, Paul, 2013. "Risk-based design of process systems using discrete-time Bayesian networks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 5-17.
    6. Saleh, Joseph H. & Pendley, Cynthia C., 2012. "From learning from accidents to teaching about accident causation and prevention: Multidisciplinary education and safety literacy for all engineering students," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 105-113.
    7. Misuri, Alessio & Landucci, Gabriele & Cozzani, Valerio, 2021. "Assessment of safety barrier performance in the mitigation of domino scenarios caused by Natech events," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    8. Alceu Souza & Ariane Maria Machado de Oliveira & Dayla Karolina Fossile & Emmanuel Óguchi Ogu & Luciano Luiz Dalazen & Claudimar Pereira da Veiga, 2020. "Business Plan Analysis Using Multi-Index Methodology: Expectations of Return and Perceived Risks," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    9. Marie Røyksund & Roger Flage, 2019. "When Is a Risk Assessment Deficient According to an Uncertainty‐Based Risk Perspective?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 761-776, April.
    10. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    11. Misuri, Alessio & Landucci, Gabriele & Cozzani, Valerio, 2021. "Assessment of risk modification due to safety barrier performance degradation in Natech events," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    12. Saleh, J.H. & Marais, K.B. & Bakolas, E. & Cowlagi, R.V., 2010. "Highlights from the literature on accident causation and system safety: Review of major ideas, recent contributions, and challenges," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1105-1116.
    13. Bakolas, Efstathios & Saleh, Joseph H., 2011. "Augmenting defense-in-depth with the concepts of observability and diagnosability from Control Theory and Discrete Event Systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 184-193.
    14. Alsulieman, Abdullah & Ge, Xihe & Zeng, Zhiguo & Butenko, Sergiy & Khan, Faisal & El-Halwagi, Mahmoud, 2024. "Dynamic risk analysis of evolving scenarios in oil and gas separator," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    15. Deng, Wanyi & Ma, Xiaoxue & Qiao, Weiliang, 2024. "A novel methodology to quantify the impact of safety barriers on maritime operational risk based on a probabilistic network," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    16. Panagiotis Sotiralis & Konstantinos Louzis & Nikolaos P Ventikos, 2019. "The role of ship inspections in maritime accidents: An analysis of risk using the bow-tie approach," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 233(1), pages 58-70, February.
    17. Yuan, Shuaiqi & Cai, Jitao & Reniers, Genserik & Yang, Ming & Chen, Chao & Wu, Jiansong, 2022. "Safety barrier performance assessment by integrating computational fluid dynamics and evacuation modeling for toxic gas leakage scenarios," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    18. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Thai, Vinh V., 2021. "An Operational Risk Analysis Model for Container Shipping Systems considering Uncertainty Quantification," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    19. Shenae Lee & Gabriele Landucci & Genserik Reniers & Nicola Paltrinieri, 2019. "Validation of Dynamic Risk Analysis Supporting Integrated Operations Across Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-25, November.
    20. Amundrud, Øystein & Aven, Terje, 2015. "On how to understand and acknowledge risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 42-47.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:191:y:2019:i:c:s0951832018304782. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.