Another Grammar Q...

[Gene Kim-Eng]

It's "commonly used."  Not quite up to the level of
"standard."

Most of the time, what you see is a crane or other
lifting equipment described as a "Single-Failure
Proof (SFP), ****-Compliant Crane," and great
care taken to avoid actually saying that the crane
*is* "single-failure (or any other kind of failure)
proof."  The first statement identifies the crane as
employing an industry-standard design methodology
that is *intended* to prevent single-point failures,
while the second can be construed as a warranty
that it will never suffer such a failure (and possibly
misconstrued as a warranty that it will never suffer
a single failure).

If you thought corrective action letters were a
potential minefield, try working on warranties for
a while...

Gene Kim-Eng



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Vickery" <cvickery at arenasolutions.com>
Anyway, it's an ugly phrase. Perhaps there is a better way to write it
but, as Gene says, if "single-failure proof" is the industry standard, I
would bend like a reed in the wind and use it.