One of the main causes for this is that a lot of people get confused when writing a hazard for a Hazard Log. They're not sure what to put in, so they put everything in to be on the safe side. There’s a lot of guidance online but there no definitive requirement on how to do it, but this is approach I prefer to use. Let me introduce the concept of a well-written hazard for a Hazard Log, which when done properly should always be a simple statement containing two parts. Well-written hazard: An unplanned event that results in an unwanted outcome

My very first job out of university over 25 years ago was as a hazard workshop secretary where I spent five weeks in Seoul, followed by a further two weeks in Kuwait, recording a Hazard Log for a new oil refinery. Over the years since then I have created, managed, reviewed, and accepted hundreds of Hazard Logs. These have covered chemical plants, nuclear facilities, helicopters, satellite signalling, new trains, station upgrades, new timetables, new buses, and a whole range of other operations and infrastructure.

There is an ongoing debate in some circles of the Australian rail industry about whether the terms So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable (SFAIRP) and As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) mean the same thing or not. I am not sure where this idea came from, but there is some wording in the ONRSR guidance (which I will discuss below) and some now withdrawn guidance from TfNSW that may be the cause of this.

Before you read this, think of all the times someone has told you what you need to do in relation to SFAIRP? "You need to demonstrate this"; "you need to fill in a form a this way"; "we expect it done this way"; and so on. Most, if not all, of this will have been incorrect advice based on people’s own views and personal experience. Let me explain.

The main duty in safety legislation is for the Duty Holder to ensure safety risks are managed So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable (SFAIRP). There are other specific duties in safety legislation, but I will focus on this one for this article. These principles can also apply to Duty Holders in other pieces of legislation.

I regularly see people challenging competent professionals and have been subjected to a lot of it myself recently by some of our client’s clients. By challenging professionals, I mean refusing to accept work from competent people, questioning every choice that has been made, insisting that evidence be provided for every decision, challenging the very ability of the individual to do their job. This leads to rework that adds little or no value, but at the same time requires additional effort and introdcues delays to delivery.