"CE" mark self certification

[oldtoddler]

.. He says that equipment being used "ON" the aircraft means that it flies with the aircraft. Our equipment is used on the ground, on the aircraft to test and verify.

If we decide to self certify our equipment (which I beleive it will pass) what standard(s) should we use? Is there a general standard that is easy to pass? Or is there some special standard we must use because we sell test equipment used on aircraft? Anyone have any ideas??

Well,well... Generally any equipment used in aircraft manufacturing process (and testing) needs to be certified..

If u're about 95%, or say at least 80%, sure that nobody wont get killed after that equipment of yours been used to test that crashed aircraft, I'd say it's pretty safe to put that self certified CE-sticker in it and never bother your head with the matter again.. I know that this is the way things have been done for last 10 or 15 yearsin in some "southern countries of Europe" - they do write those CoC's without any quilt.. then again - if u need to play safe, then it just might be a good idea to do some homework.. one rule: list all standards your equipment meets, and if you are not 100% sure - don't list it..

Personally u're pretty safe as long as you don't put your signature into any piece of paper (CoC).. That does not acquit your boss and the company u work in.. If you have already signed even one CoC, then your ass is mine.. be sure that once your ass is on the line-some sunny day someone will burn _your_ ass... o:-)

And if u ever quote me, I'll straightforwardly deny everything... o:-)

[GaryAviation]

Folks: Thanks to all who replied to my question(s) on CE certification. I took your advice and ordered EN 50082-1 and EN 50082-2. PROBLEM ?? I did not receive either. I received the following:

BS EN 61000-6-1:2001 and BS EN 61000-6-2:2005

Are these two officially replacing the EN 50082-1 and EN 50082-2? And on my self certification document, I can simply list one of these and call it a day?

Thanks

[hansknec]

If your product meets ANY Directive, you are entitled to stick a CE mark on it and certify saying so.

Melanie, You are actually in the UK right? I say that because those of us across the pond (USA) have been given a much more restrictive warning about CE marks. I sold a product to Darsbury University and needed the CE mark. I "self" certified as is allowed and saved the $8000 EMC and Low Voltage directive testing, but I really felt like I was pushing my luck. Everything I read about CE indicated that I needed to check off ALL directives that the product fell under and then show that the product met ALL directives before affixing the mark. (sidebar- can you believe there are companies selling the gif image for CE? As if we can't find the image elsewhere and photoshop it.)

I think the fear is not that some postal inspector will catch you, but rather the fact that one of your EU competitors might rat on you to the authorities in order to get your product banned.

I would love to have you dissuade my fears, because I just got a quote from a testing company for a new product. $12500 to certify it for EMC and Low voltage directives.

[hansknec]

To answer your original question -- Yes.

EN61000:2001 is the new EMC standard.
I think the sub chapters followed the old 50082 numbers.

A good web search will yield all the right numbers for you.

John

[lester]

Speaking as somebody that has been through not only the certification process for products that we manufacture and market, but also as someone who has been through the mill when prosecuted for non compliance under the EMC directive, I think i'm fairly well positioned in saying that:

Many people attach the CE mark without testing correctly or even understanding exactly what directives apply. They "get way with it" because they are not challenged.

You do need to test and you do need to understand which directives apply. You are accountable ( not the company, but the signatory on the compliance statement).

If you are supplying to a gov't agency or any client likely to carry out due dilligence, i.e any one that specifically asks for CE, be sure to ensure that you have thourougly researched the relevent directives.

(The same applies to RoHS)

I dont have it to hand, but if you PM me i'll point you to two excellent books that will spell it out for you. And if you like to call me, i'll explain what happenms when OfCom get wind of a non compliant product, via the local trading standards officer or by Govt agency.

Rememebr that in the UK failure to comply is a criminal office, with a penalty that can include not only a fine but also imprisonment.

A two year battle resulted in my name being cleared, the company receiving a fine and 15000 GBP in costs.

And that was related to failure to comply with the legislation on a product that was exempt form CE, under Functionality, use and End User.

There is also a case in the UK where a company building home PC's for retail sale, used all CE marked parts, but failed to test the fully built product. They assumed that by using CE marked parts they could CE mark the final product, without further testing. WRONG, resulted in 3 MONTHS prison sentence for the company director and a big fine.


My advice, dont take advise from non qualified peers, anecdotal evidence is no defence. If it all goes pear shaped, the court will not accept "so and so on the forum said it would be OK"

BUT, you are in the USA, yes? So the importer is the responsible party, and thats your client
------------------------------o0o---------------------------------
I just deleted a whole load of advsie that i'm pretty sure is correct, but i'm not qualified to give. (legal stuff, that i learned during our prosecution)

PM me or call me if you wish.


BTW, I learned so much during our prosecution, that ending up with a clear name and paying 15000 GBP, was actually well worth the money (when viewed in commercial terms), made loads of really good contacts, including those on the presecution team, who i'm still in touch with. Even went for a drink with one of them after the case.

[lester]

Actually i just read this thread again,

If you were in the UK you're flying really close to the wind.

Just the content of this thread, in the hands of prosecution, are enough to counter any mitigation that you might plead if you failed to comply.

its scary.

[Archangel]

Even went for a drink with one of them after the case.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer!
Regards Lester,
JS

[lester]

Yep it pays

[malc-c]

There is also a case in the UK where a company building home PC's for retail sale, used all CE marked parts, but failed to test the fully built product. They assumed that by using CE marked parts they could CE mark the final product, without further testing. WRONG, resulted in 3 MONTHS prison sentence for the company director and a big fine.

Lester,

This seams strange. I've been in consulation with our H&S director where I work and he stated that as I've purcahsed components through such suppliers as Farnell, RS etc these components would of had to of been tested to comply with these directives. Therefore there would be no real requirement to have a lab test the assembled device. This would be the equivelent of your example above.

It seems that this process is somewhat of a mind field and nothing is black and white

[ponthirmike]

Unfortunately a system of parts which are CE approved does not automatically make the System CE compliant.

I have had a specific case where I used a CE compliant radio module in a product but still had to have the product approved to the R&TTE directive. On a brighter note (?) the use of CE approved parts DOES reduce the overall system approval (ie using a CE approved Power Supply will dramatically reduce, or in some cases, remove the need for the assessment to the Low Voltage Directive