deletions | additions       diff --git a/sectionCURRENT_STATU.tex b/sectionCURRENT_STATU.tex  index f2304e8..21f4a57 100644  --- a/sectionCURRENT_STATU.tex  +++ b/sectionCURRENT_STATU.tex 
...
\section{CURRENT STATUS}  The definition of beam availability is important in order to compare numbers from different facilities.   A survey on failure analysis in 2008 for nine light sources\footnote{Survey sources~\footnote{Survey  participants for the failure analysis questionnaire came from: APS, ESRF, SPring-8, Diamond, SOLEIL, BESSY II, Elettra, ANKA and SLS.} revealed significant differences for the calculation of beam availability~\cite{L_deke_2009}. In the following we summarise the main findings of the survey.  In many cases the beam availability calculations were determined by identifying events as ``downtime'' that interrupted the majority of the users.   Some facilities considered ``long'' injector outages - causing ``decaying beam'' operation - to be downtime, others accounted for these events individually.  Most facilities only counted beam delivery between two outages if it exceeded a minimum duration.   The minimal required duration varied between 15 and 60 minutes.   In cases of long beam outages, most facilities organised compensation time for the users to allow them to finish their experiments. The compensation time was also accounted for in different ways, depending on the facility:   some fully subtracted the extra beam time from the downtime,   whilst others ignored this extra time for the availability calculation.   All light sources did record other events than beam outages,  such as increased beam size or orbit problems,   but no facility published statistics on these other failure modes at regular intervals.   During a discussion round at the ARW 2013 in Melbourne~\cite{Arw:2013Url}   we polled the calculation of beam availability from participants representing ten light sources\footnote{Participants o  f sources~\footnote{Participants of  the ARW'13 presenting their calculation of beam availability came from: ALBA, Australian Synchrotron, BESSY II, Diamond, SPEAR, NSRRC, SOLEIL, Elettra, SLS and PETRA III.} with the same result as the survey of 2008.   Based on this data the authors concluded that a common operation metric was needed direct comparison of accelerators  reliability is currently impossible.   It is in the interest of every facility, from the operators  to provide the facility manager to be  able to assess its accelerator reliability compared to other facilities.   Internally this is important to support requests for upgrades and or maintenance plans.   It can help to take adequate decisions if proper information   to compare with other facilities is readily available.   A comparison of reliability may also serve as  a standardized calculation trigger to establish collaborations between facilities.   A particular sub-system might be identified as failing more than others  and consequently this might be the   trigger point to set up  a meaningful comparison   for common project to develop a solution.   As a consequence of everyone using  the reliability across different storage ring light sources. same common metrics, a fairer comparison may also  emerge when requesting funding to supranational authorities.