Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2012 Q6 permissive moves
#6
My view is that the question asked for RISKS and therefore you should start with these.
Since risks result from HAZARDS it seems reasonable that these are identified as part of "discussing the risks".
To mitigate risk than it is always best to eliminate the hazard, or failing that to reduce the hazard and failing that to mitigate against the likelihood by adding some barrier to escalation or otherwise adding something that would serve to reduce the consequences which could be expected to result.
Therefore this would be the approach I would normally adopt for all such questions, but precisely how you tackle it is up to you and the context of the question; it could sometimes be best to deal with all the risks, then all the hazards and then all the mitigations but other times it may be more appropriate to deal with a risk, the related hazards and the relevant possible mitigation before moving on to the next risk and doing similarly.
Depends on how separate each set are / how much overlapping there is.
Alternatively use a tabular approach and then it could be read either way.


(21-09-2014, 04:39 PM)BHAR6026 Wrote: Hi PJW
So in this case do we have to explain risks in the beginning(which you have suggested) , then hazards leading to it and risk mitigations in the end ?
PJW
Reply


Messages In This Thread
2012 Q6 permissive moves - by Hort - 19-08-2013, 05:53 PM
RE: 2012 Q6 permissive moves - by PJW - 19-08-2013, 06:16 PM
RE: 2012 Q6 permissive moves - by PJW - 19-08-2013, 06:52 PM
RE: 2012 Q6 permissive moves - by Hort - 21-08-2013, 06:04 PM
RE: 2012 Q6 permissive moves - by BHAR6026 - 21-09-2014, 04:39 PM
RE: 2012 Q6 permissive moves - by PJW - 21-09-2014, 06:37 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)