Control Design: The space shuttle had three computers and needed a two-of-three voting system to determine if a sensed variable was real or phantom. This would be a good thing regarding a leaking door seal on the capsule. Safety sensing isn’t a new technology, but it seems that understanding what a safety system function is might be lacking a bit.
5 comments:
I think that the problems brought up in this article regarding redundancies in safety systems are valid in a factory setting, but probably not in a theatrical setting. A whole plant shutting down because a single door opens does seem like a bit much, but in something like a show I am of the opinion that more safety is always better. Redundancy is important, and I think most people would agree that they would rather a show stop for a few minutes out of an abundance of safety, then see someone get seriously injured because of a malfunction. This goes outside of theatre as well, specifically with the problems Boeing has been facing with their planes a few years ago, because there was not enough redundancy in their system planes were falling out of the sky. So yes, there is a line, but I personally think that at least in entertainment we should stay as far on the right side of that line as possible, regardless of redundancies.
Through being a part of the Company load in in the Chosky over spring break, through crew calls, and in helping run automation I feel I have gotten a crash course on use of EStops and how the are required in a system as well as what their purpose is. I agree with this article without the proper planning an estop being implemented can at times be a hindrance as opposed to helpful if the proper planning and communication has not occurred across the board. On the other hand the opposite is also true. When Estops are implemented properly and everyone involved knows why they were implemented to use if said automation will go a lot smoother and will more importantly be safer. I think that as robotics, CNC, automation and AI get used more and more in our world there will be a greater need for estops and other similar safety functions to that systems done break and people don’t get hurt. The real struggle is how these systems will be put into place and how they will be managed.
Figuring out what level of safety factors to employ on a product is not something I had considered would need such a thorough examination before. Previously, I had assumed that the location of e-stops, as well as making sure failsafes are (as the name suggests) failproof, were as far as an engineer would need to think for these things. However, in retrospect it seems obvious that designers would need to consider what is too much safety. If a customer deems that a safety feature is not only annoying, but useless, chances are they may try and circumvent or trick it. Leading to less safety in the long run. For example, if a SawStop was too sensitive, or went off too often, people would just keep it off permanently, keeping it from actually protecting anything. It would be a fun job to try and find that goldilocks zone of adding safety, while staying out of the way.
"How much safety is too much safety?" is a good question. One time I heard some guys talking and somebody said "safety first!". But they started discussing it and somebody said something along the lines of "Safety is never really first, if it were we'd never get anything done. It's important, but getting stuff done comes first." If you wanted to make the world a perfectly safe bubble, then yeah we'd never get anything done. And there are a lot of times we put ourselves into risky positions to accomplish a task. Safety is important, but I think having an understanding of the safety measures that are or are not being used and why, is also quite important. It's important for a user to know where the dangers are within a system and how to work with/around them. And it's important to know how much of a safety system to implement, so that it is helpful and not a hindrance.
As I have gotten more into rigging and using machinery to help with my job, I have also started to learn more about safety protocols, Estops, and general machine safety. I think this article has a good point of gauging how much safety is needed in a specific scenario. For theatre, I would always like to go towards more safe than less, We have limited time to plan, test, reiterate, and install unlike many other professions. Because of this, airing on the side of extra safety eliminates the margin of error that is assumed in live entertainment. I see how a lot of situations would be affected by too much safety that got in the way of the process. However, in a theatre with an audience and actors near a lot of hanging objects and a heavy set, extra safety can benefit the security of a performance and the comfort of everyone involved.
Post a Comment