I think you should have concentrated rather more precisely the testing & commissioning staff- for example what actions they would take in order to get an alteration to the design made. Also your wording suggests that it should be eradicated if possible but didn't say what to do if this is not possible.
Having raised the issue of having identified a design defect within a system component (as opposed to the appication design) in the first section, then you should have made a bit more of it; what about all the other sites on the railway where that failure mode would also presumably exist? Possible need for urgent consideration whether these could remain in traffic use, need for investigation, risk assessment, determine potential short and long term mitigations..... Don't however get drawn too much into this as I don't think it was what the question was primarily about but having written what you had, then an additional sentence would have been good.
I felt that for what was quite a short answer that you spent too much time discussing some tangential items in too much detail- for example discussion of the duration and "block burst" was probably excessive in that there were 3 lines of text that wouldn't have added to your marks.
It would have been better to have used that time to consider the different consequences that various faults would each have-
a) very unsatisfactory, prohibiting any commissioning at all, thus giving the options of putting back as it was (if indeed practicable) / suffering large delay to commissioning with severe operational consequences,
b) an element unsatisfactory but operators could live without it temporarily, permitting the rest of the commissioning and arranging to come back soon to remedy it,
c) unsatisfactory but actually could be adequately mitigated in the short term by a specific operational procedure so could be temporarily commissioned with a suitable restriction- because judged low risk,
d) minor issue which isn't at all unsafe but perhaps inhibits full operation flexibility or may not be reliable long term, full commissioning yet come back to improve at convenient time later.
I thnk that whereas your item ii) did discuss the various options to some extent, that they were a bit hidden in the text. I'd advise a numbered or bullet point list to make them more evident. or perhaps a table with a separate row for each and a column explaining the circumstances in which each might be a suitable option.
Your item iii) seems (but I am not quite sure I interpreted correctly) to be talking of an error that only emerges post commissioning. Certainly true that this sometime happens and in the UK would be treated rather differently; however I don't consider relevant to what was asked. However given that this was only a short description then possibly a gamble worth making- examiner just might give you some small credit.
So I feel that you do understand the scenario from your answer, but you could have presented it better and focussed it a little more to precisely what was asked.
Having raised the issue of having identified a design defect within a system component (as opposed to the appication design) in the first section, then you should have made a bit more of it; what about all the other sites on the railway where that failure mode would also presumably exist? Possible need for urgent consideration whether these could remain in traffic use, need for investigation, risk assessment, determine potential short and long term mitigations..... Don't however get drawn too much into this as I don't think it was what the question was primarily about but having written what you had, then an additional sentence would have been good.
I felt that for what was quite a short answer that you spent too much time discussing some tangential items in too much detail- for example discussion of the duration and "block burst" was probably excessive in that there were 3 lines of text that wouldn't have added to your marks.
It would have been better to have used that time to consider the different consequences that various faults would each have-
a) very unsatisfactory, prohibiting any commissioning at all, thus giving the options of putting back as it was (if indeed practicable) / suffering large delay to commissioning with severe operational consequences,
b) an element unsatisfactory but operators could live without it temporarily, permitting the rest of the commissioning and arranging to come back soon to remedy it,
c) unsatisfactory but actually could be adequately mitigated in the short term by a specific operational procedure so could be temporarily commissioned with a suitable restriction- because judged low risk,
d) minor issue which isn't at all unsafe but perhaps inhibits full operation flexibility or may not be reliable long term, full commissioning yet come back to improve at convenient time later.
I thnk that whereas your item ii) did discuss the various options to some extent, that they were a bit hidden in the text. I'd advise a numbered or bullet point list to make them more evident. or perhaps a table with a separate row for each and a column explaining the circumstances in which each might be a suitable option.
Your item iii) seems (but I am not quite sure I interpreted correctly) to be talking of an error that only emerges post commissioning. Certainly true that this sometime happens and in the UK would be treated rather differently; however I don't consider relevant to what was asked. However given that this was only a short description then possibly a gamble worth making- examiner just might give you some small credit.
So I feel that you do understand the scenario from your answer, but you could have presented it better and focussed it a little more to precisely what was asked.
(24-06-2011, 07:12 PM)KonduriRaghavakumar Wrote: I contributed my ideas regarding this please check it out and suggest me accordingly.
K.Raghavakumar
PJW