Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
You're still missing the point here. Risk analysis looks at two components, likelihood and severity. While you have repeatedly made claims that the likelihood of the failure of a Pneuaire tank is lower, the severity of the risk is the same. Plastics, by their nature, tend to fail in a brittle fashion. As a result, plastics as a pressure vessel tend to explode when they fail. The severity of a a failure of a pneuaire tank is still very high, as it would create high energy shrapnel.
|
You're actually very close, but risk analysis (FMEA) rates 3 factors from a 1 to 10 rating)
1> likelihood -- the chance of a failure happening (in this case probably a 2)
2> Severity -- the damage a failure will cause (in this case with personal injury and severe trauma as well as innocent bystanders that have little to no idea of the danger [read: general public] I'd call this a 8)
3> Detection -- the chance to detect a failure BEFORE it happens ( almost no chance here so a 9)
That gives a FMEA rating of 144. Medical and automotive industry usually red flags at 60 and manufacturing usually at 90.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
What the people calling for examining a ban on plastic tanks are concerned about is the severity of the risk, not necessarily the frequency of failures. The argument that the reward of allowing teams to use a plastic tank does not outweigh the total risk factor, which is contrary to the reward of letting teams use tools. That's the argument you have to address, not that pneuaire tanks are less likely to fail.
|
^THIS^