Ada Risk Assessment: Fill & Download for Free

As a general matter, a service dog can go anywhere that a member of the public can go and cannot go where members of the public are restricted.A detailed discussion of this subject appears at Is there anywhere that service dogs are not permitted?. Common examples of places where service dogs are prohibited are sterile rooms used for medical procedures and sanitary rooms used for food preparation. Among other things, the website identified above states as follows:Examples where a service animal might be excluded include (but are not limited to):-Sterile rooms, such as operating rooms, some areas of emergency rooms/ departments, some ICU rooms, some ambulances, some delivery rooms (on a case-by-case basis based on actual risk assessment)-Clean rooms where microchips are manufactured-Places where food is prepared (though they cannot generally be excluded from dining areas where food is present) (by order of most health departments)-Open air zoological exhibits, such as open air aviaries or butterfly gardens (at the zoo's discretion but based on actual risk assessment)-Churches (at the church's discretion)-Native American Tribal Council Chambers (at the council's discretion)-Federal Courts (at the judge's discretion)-Jail or prison cells (at the discretion of the facility director)-Private clubs (at the club's discretion)-Private homes (at the home owner's discretion)-Some amusement park rides (at the park management's discretion but based on actual risk assessment)The webpage also states: “If a business can show that allowing a service dog to enter a specific part of their business would constitute a direct threat, fundamental alteration, or undue burden, then they may legally exclude service dogs from entering there, but must still accommodate the person with a disability without their service dog. “The webpage further states as follows:“For an example of a direct threat, consider a burn unit or ICU caring for a patient in very fragile condition where doctors tell us that the mere presence of a dog, even a clean, well-behaved dog, poses an unacceptable risk to the life and health of the patient because the risk of exposure to loose hair or zoonosis is in their medical opinion too high, then a service dog might be excluded from the burn unit or ICU. A general rule of thumb (which still has exceptions) is that if special clothing such as gown or gloves is required, then a service animal might also be excluded and certainly a service dog handler upon noting special precautions are required for a given area should inquire about whether a service dog can enter without endangering the patients within.”“For an example of a fundamental alteration, consider a cat rescue society that attempts to find homes for abandoned/neglected/abused cats. They might reasonably exclude service dogs from their adoption area because the mere presence of a dog is known to cause distress to some of the cats up for adoption. They might instead offer a secure location for the service animal while the human partner visits with the cats or remove individual cats for inspection in another area, away from those that are afraid of dogs. The ultimate purpose of such a facility is to rescue cats from trauma and traumatizing a cat by exposing it to something it fears would fundamentally alter that purpose.”“For an example of an undue burden, consider a swimming pool which uses special filtering equipment and chemicals to maintain a certain level of cleanliness and hygiene for swimmers. If they know that their filters cannot handle the added load of dog hair or that adding a dog to the pool would upset the delicate balance of pH and chlorine, thereby putting swimmers at risk of disease and that it would cost them more money than they can afford to upgrade the pool facilities to also handle canine users, then they might legally exclude a service animal from entering the water, but not from being in areas of the facility where people are permitted in street clothes and shoes, such as possibly the decking around the pool.”In addition to the foregoing, it is notable that the Americans with Disabilities Act (which is the primary basis for the right to have a service dog in public places) do not apply to religious organizations or private membership clubs.Prisons also are exempt from the service animal provisions of the ADA.Finally, Service Dog access to airplanes is regulated by the FAA, which is not required to comply with the ADA. As a general matter, the FAA does require the airlines to provide access to air travel by disabled persons accompanied by a service animal, but the FAA need not do so and is permitted to adopt rules and regulations — such as requiring proof that a dog is a trained service animal — that would not otherwise be permitted by others.

Technically I’ve only used semi-formal methods. I’ve programmed in Ada, using the SPARK subset, and utilised that subset with SPARK annotations. However, to be truly formal, I should have taken formal requirements developed in something like Z, as the starting point for the software and verified it against them.That said, formal methods are rigorous and necessary for the development of software of the highest integrity levels. Things like flight control software, software for controlling nuclear plants, or software for the control of autonomous vehicles would reasonably be expected to use formal methods, even though some may not have done so.A key weakness of formal methods is at the point of their translation into natural language. There, you find error can creep in, as the translation loses the technical rigour of the language. The other problem formal methods has, is at the point of translation from the deterministic (where most programs lie) to the stochastic (where real world events are not deterministic, but depend on probability).The problem with software that doesn’t follow formal development controls is that latent defects can (and will) occur in the software. They occur in formally developed software as well, but the number, density and significance is typically much less. Those latent defects may simply be something annoying, however some can result in undermining the very purpose for which the software was developed.That said, there is a history of far more serious problems occurring that originate from software requirements than arising from software coding.Latent defects in a game, or a business application might be annoying. As long as the bug simply stops the game, or editing session working, then that’s not a problem. However, if the software is assisting surgeons perform brain surgery, or ensuring water treatment occurs without poisoning people, then more care ought be taken.That’s why a risk assessment of software allows you to focus your resources to apply rigour where it is needed. If everything is important, then nothing is. You need to focus your energy where it has the most beneficial effect.My main criticism about non-rigourous state of the art programming, is they rarely consider the risk of their developments in a systematic way. That can prevent them understanding an undesirable consequence of their software before an unfortunate event occurs. Doing a risk assessment first allows you to have objective evidence you considered safety of the development. It doesn’t need to be particular sophisticated, if the application risks are low, and the software is simple.

AMCA project in on table from 2008 when IAF ask for replacement of Mirage-2000 and Jaguar fighter aircrafts. At that time it was referred as Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA). Initially it was decided a 20 tons class fighter plane.But in 2010, this project was renamed as AMCA . IAF submitted ASR for AMCA which turn to be a 25 tons aircraft. DRDO ADA has asked to Rs. 9000 crores for initial development work to develop 3–4 prototype by 2017. But government was reluctant to allocate such huge public money at that high risk project. Government evaluated that LCA tejas was far from ready. FOC Tejas supposed to be delivered by 2010. But even it's IOC version, which was supposed to be delivered by 2008 was uncertain. ADA did not had any additional resources for AMCA project. They have to reduce resources from LCA project and allocate into AMCA. It will further delay LCA project. LCA project was at doorstep of failure if further delay happens.So to save LCA, government directed DRDO ADA to focus only on LCA project. Delivery FOC Tejas first before focus on other projects but continue minimum work on AMCA. Plus LCA project was expanded due to new Naval LCA Tejas project. In 2013, UPA government put on hold in AMCA and ask ADA to put all its efforts into LCA. No doubt it was wise decision.Reference : Tejas grounds Medium Combat Aircraft projectAssessment of Modi Government was not different from UPA government. Modi Government also decided to finish LCA Tejas project than move into bigger project. Tejas got its FOC in 2019. AMCA Conceptual design phase was completed few years ago. From 2019, AMCA’s details design phase has started. It is expected in next year this phase will be completed. Now ADA can allocate more resources into AMCA as LCA project is completed. Though further development works will be continued by smaller team on LCA.Modi Government and previous UPA government was not hurry in AMCA project because no one wants to replicate LCA’s mistakes twice.