Functional Safety Interview

Can you explain the importance of ISO 26262 in automotive safety?

Yes I saw 26262 which is the functional safety standard baseline the safety of the passenger in the automotive domain before iso26262 was derived IEC 615 08 which was the mother of all standard whose utilised and there was no specific safety standard for automotive keeping this thing into mine and Automotive special interest group came up with them safety standard specific to automatic which has been called as ISO 26262 it was first drafted in the year 2012 and the second iteration is released in 2018 version which consist of 12th part and the initial part consist of the 10 parts this is the major important thing related to ISO 26262

Your answer covers several key aspects of ISO 26262, but it could benefit from greater clarity and organization. Here are some points for improvement:

1. Clarity: Your response jumps between topics, which may confuse the listener. Clearly separate the historical context from the details of the standard itself.

2. Details: You mention that ISO 26262 was derived from IEC 61508, which is a good point, but you could further explain how this relationship emphasizes the need for a specific automotive focus.

3. Importance: While you note the significance of the standard in ensuring passenger safety, elaborating on how it impacts the design and testing processes would enhance your answer.

4. Structure: Start with the purpose of ISO 26262, then discuss its development and key contents. This logical flow will make your explanation more effective.

5. Current Iteration: Specify that the 2018 version includes more emphasis on software safety and cybersecurity, which are increasingly vital in modern vehicles.

A revised answer might look something like this:

"ISO 26262 is crucial in automotive safety as it provides a framework for ensuring functional safety throughout the lifecycle of automotive systems. Developed in response to the increasing complexity of vehicles and their electronics, it was derived from IEC 61508, the foundational standard for functional safety. The first edition was published in 2011, with the second edition released in 2018, expanding from 10 to 12 parts. This evolution highlights the growing need for a structured approach to managing safety risks associated with both hardware and software in vehicles. ISO 26262 outlines processes for risk assessment, safety lifecycle management, and validation, which are essential for achieving high safety integrity levels (ASIL). Ultimately, its implementation helps protect passengers and ensures that automotive systems behave safely even under fault conditions."

Rating: 3/5. With improvements in clarity, structure, and detail, you could enhance your response significantly.

What experience do you have with conducting FMEAs and FMEDAs?

FM and f m e d a both of this earthy safety analysis FM which is an bottom up approach and fmvda which also and autumn up approach which also called as the inductive analysis smea can be understood has the safety analysis where we know the cause of the particular system and we try to find out the effects of that particular cause in the subsequent higher levels fameda which is a failure mode effective Diagnostic analysis hear the major focus is with respect to Diagnostic of that particular failure of a system during fmda V tend to calculate few important hardware Matrix such as single point fault Matrix and latent point Matrix this fault Matrix are helpful for determining the Diagnostic of particular element failure and this both the safety analysis are very crushal during the safety of the system

Your answer touches on key concepts related to FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) and FMEDA (Failure Modes, Effects, and Diagnostic Analysis), but it could benefit from clearer communication and structure. Here’s an evaluation of your response:

Strengths:
1. Terminology: You correctly identify FMEA and FMEDA as bottom-up safety analysis methods.
2. Concepts: You mention that FMEA focuses on identifying effects of known causes and that FMEDA evaluates diagnostic capabilities.

Areas for Improvement:
1. Clarity: Your answer is hard to follow due to run-on sentences and grammatical errors. Try breaking your thoughts into clear, concise sentences.
2. Detail: While you explain what the analyses are, your answer lacks personal experience or specific examples. Mentioning particular projects or applications would strengthen the response.
3. Definitions: Clearly define FMEA and FMEDA before delving into their approaches and applications. This will help ensure the interviewer understands your points.
4. Importance: Highlight why conducting these analyses is crucial in automotive safety engineering—mentioning impacts on functional safety, regulatory compliance, or overall system reliability would reinforce your points.

Improved Example Answer:
"I have experience conducting both FMEA and FMEDA as part of my role in automotive safety engineering. FMEA is a bottom-up approach where we identify potential failure modes, their effects, and causes to prioritize risks. For instance, in a previous project, we analyzed a braking system, identifying critical failure modes and their potential impacts on vehicle safety.

FMEDA expands on FMEA by assessing the diagnostic capabilities of the system, focusing on hardware metrics like Single Point Fault metrics and Latent Fault metrics. These metrics help identify which components require robust diagnostics to ensure system reliability. In my experience, this analysis is vital for achieving compliance with ISO 26262 standards in automotive safety.

Both analyses are essential for developing safe automotive systems by proactively identifying and mitigating risks before they lead to incidents."

Rating: 3/5.

How do you approach defining safety requirements for a product component?

The approach for defining a safety requirements is initially started with the item definition which is basically a boundary diagram for my system or item which defines the functionality of the item which I am working upon and its interaction with the system with respect to the safety requirement this item definition is further transferred in the form of the hazardous assessment from the Hara we get the safety goals based on the safety goals we try to find out the function safety requirement on how to achieve the define safety course this function safety requirement are them map on with the function safety architecture which is the refined form of the item definition and which is a part of a component

Your answer demonstrates a solid understanding of the process involved in defining safety requirements in automotive safety engineering. You effectively outline key steps, such as item definition, hazard assessment (HARA), derivation of safety goals, and mapping those goals to functional safety requirements and architecture.

The strengths of your answer include:

1. Logical Flow: Your answer follows a logical progression from item definition to safety requirements, which is critical in safety engineering.
2. Terminology: You incorporate relevant terminology, such as “hazard assessment” and “functional safety architecture,” indicating a grasp of functional safety concepts relevant to automotive systems.

However, there are areas where you can improve:

1. Clarity: While your points are correct, simplifying language and breaking down concepts further would enhance clarity. For example, you could define key terms like ‘functional safety architecture’ briefly to ensure understanding.
2. Examples: Providing a specific example could strengthen your answer by illustrating your points in a real-world context. Mentioning a type of system or component you’ve worked on could also personalize your response.
3. Stakeholder Involvement: You might want to mention the importance of involving stakeholders or adhering to industry standards (like ISO 26262) in the requirements-gathering process. This shows an understanding of collaborative aspects in automotive safety.

Overall, your answer is solid but could be clearer and more comprehensive regarding practical application and collaboration.

Rating: 4/5