Our study group looked at this question on Wednesday Evening, I took along my past paper notes that I made a few years ago, and I used them to guide the discussion. It was interesting because I felt I'd answer the questions differently now to how I did back then, any way I've attached the word file, with additional text in red from a rather more senior railwayman.
What I'd change is the following:
Part A - expand a bit, use the example provided in the previous post: http://www.irseexam.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=258
Part B - the previous thread also discusses this question, but my new approach would be to brainstorm and write every risk I could think of, at least ten. Then along side score them 1-5 for severity and likelihood, then add the two scores giving a risk score. Relative risk ranking would then identify the top 5 risks.
Part C - draw a hazard log: a table with columns for the unique identifier (H1), accident, hazard, cause, likelihood, severity, risk, mitigation, post mitigation likelihood, post mitigation severity, residual risk.
The top 5 risks identified in part b would be split into the accident, hazard, cause columns, along with the likelihood, severity and risk score. Then mitigation would be the use of ATP - of course for some of the risks the ATP may make no impact at all, and hence there willl be no additional mitigation. Then rescore the hazards, those affected by mitigation should see an alterred reduced residual risk - normally reduced.
Stating assumptions is of course crucial, I reckon that the hazard log would fit nicely into a landscape A4 manuscritp, and the assumptions might take another page.
Part D - I would have to ask what the risk was originally, and note that we waren't told by what extend it was to be reduced. It could be good to talk about how the risk profile has been changed and discuss which 'risks' remain in the tolerable region, and whether or not we have driven them to ALARP of SFAIRP.
Please share any comments, your thoughts, or your own answer to this question . . .
What I'd change is the following:
Part A - expand a bit, use the example provided in the previous post: http://www.irseexam.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=258
Part B - the previous thread also discusses this question, but my new approach would be to brainstorm and write every risk I could think of, at least ten. Then along side score them 1-5 for severity and likelihood, then add the two scores giving a risk score. Relative risk ranking would then identify the top 5 risks.
Part C - draw a hazard log: a table with columns for the unique identifier (H1), accident, hazard, cause, likelihood, severity, risk, mitigation, post mitigation likelihood, post mitigation severity, residual risk.
The top 5 risks identified in part b would be split into the accident, hazard, cause columns, along with the likelihood, severity and risk score. Then mitigation would be the use of ATP - of course for some of the risks the ATP may make no impact at all, and hence there willl be no additional mitigation. Then rescore the hazards, those affected by mitigation should see an alterred reduced residual risk - normally reduced.
Stating assumptions is of course crucial, I reckon that the hazard log would fit nicely into a landscape A4 manuscritp, and the assumptions might take another page.
Part D - I would have to ask what the risk was originally, and note that we waren't told by what extend it was to be reduced. It could be good to talk about how the risk profile has been changed and discuss which 'risks' remain in the tolerable region, and whether or not we have driven them to ALARP of SFAIRP.
Please share any comments, your thoughts, or your own answer to this question . . .
