Talk:Failure mode and effects analysis

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2012; 2014; 2016; 2019;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Engineering C‑class High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology C‑class

	Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Risk priority number calculation

RPN = S × (O + D) since the inability of checking system increase the possibility of occurance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.167.58.241 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the ability/inability to check for the occurance (probability of detection)of a failure mode is independent of the occurrence of the failure mode. Dbodimer (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of worksheet and ranking tables

The example worksheet and ranking tables are unique to ARP476, but many other guidance documents for FMEA use a 10-point scale, or another method entirely, and the layout of the worksheet is often somewhat different. See, for example, the AIAG Potential Failure Mode and Effects manual, the U.S. Army Training Manual 5-698-4 and MIL-STD-1629-A (canceled). Is there any objection to updating the example ranking tables to reflect both standards? Any suggestions on how best to present this without confusing the reader?

Tom Hopper (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]