SECTION 1   GENERAL INFORMATION     TITLE PAGE INFORMATION   Equipment Name     Section     Directions for the use and amendment of the document   This document is a report of the Hazard Analysis on the .  This item was analysed as part of the project carried out by the in   .  This project examined the hazards and risks associated with the use of the .   This document may not be amended other than through a revision of the Hazard Analysis project results by the .   Distribution   Distribution is controlled by the .     EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION   Manufacturer Model Type Technical Authority Functional Description Not available - to be provided Physical Description     EQUIPMENT BREAKDOWN   Not detailed at this level.     LOGISTIC REQUIREMENTS   Not detailed at this level     TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION Maintenance Plan Not detailed at this level Maintenance Strategy Planned maintenance Statement of Relevance Not detailed at this level Planned Maintenance    Drawings and Handbooks     SECTION 2   TAMP / MMI ANALYSIS INFORMATION INTRODUCTION   The was analysed as part of the project carried out by the in .   The scope of the project was the .  Consequence categories assessed were:     ITEM DESCRIPTION Capability Parent Capability Location Make and Model Equipment Class Function     COARSE ASSESSMENT   The initial analysis carried out on the item was a coarse assessment, to determine if there was a need to perform a detailed assessment.  The results of this coarse assessment are as follows: Mandatory requirements were examined Yes Mandatory requirements prescribe a solution Mission criticality As defined in the USN FFG 7 Class Preparers Guide Progressive Ships Maintenance Logistic Support Analysis Energy Impact assessment Worst impact assessment Quantitative item As defined in Technical Directive TM181 - General requirements for the calibration and checking of shipboard gauges The determination of this coarse assessment was that a detailed assessment was required .     DETAILED ASSESSMENT   Overview   A detailed assessment was conducted for all occurrences of the within the .  The detailed assessment involved the following: Identifying the different hazard and risk contexts in which the item was located For each hazard context, identifying and assessing each hazard that exists For each hazard, identifying and assessing each risk that could arise For each risk, identifying the various options considered for risk mitigation For each option, identifying each control (eg. planned maintenance activity) put in place to implement the option For each control, assessing its criticality and determining if the control is a Mandatory Planned Maintenance Item   Context of Use   Analysis identified a number of different situations that are likely to result in different types and likelihoods of hazards, and different exposures to and types of consequences.  These contexts are as follows: Hazard Contexts .  The situations likely to result in different types and likelihoods of hazards. Operating Environment Operating Mode # operating cycles / year # operating hours / year   Risk Contexts .  The situations likely to result in different exposures to different types of consequences Consequence Category   Hazards and Risks   The hazard and risk data is presented in the following tables.  The data is grouped by hazard context.   Context of Use -   Hazard - Failure Mode Description Dominant energy causing failure Likelihood of Failure - Risks Risk -   Description Consequence Category Exposure Likelihood - Severity Risk Index ( )   MPMI Assessment   Based on the preceeding analysis, this item was determined to be a MANDATORY PLANNED MAINTENANCE ITEM .  This assessment is based on the worst risk which has a Hazard Risk Index of . NOT be a Mandatory Planned Maintenance Item. The determination of this coarse assessment was that a detailed assessment was not required .   This item is NOT a MANDATORY PLANNED MAINTENANCE ITEM.