I read in !emc-pstc that Gregg Kervill <[email protected]> wrote (in <003301c16614$de9ced90$7300a8c0@MENHADEN>) about '"Safety Critical" etc - the future - Are we professionals? Milestones not Millstones.', on Mon, 5 Nov 2001: >Good Morning John, and how are you today?
OK, up to now, thank you. > > >Many thanks for your answer - I could not have hoped for a better >illustration of what happens when a reader does not understand the >background behind, the intent or the values of the person (or the committee) >doing the writing, and then gets it totally wrong. And heaven knows I've >done that often enough myself! Don't be too sure that I do not understand what you wrote. Of course, what you meant might be something other and not discernible. > [snip] > > >Whilst we all rely heavily upon IEC and other standards - what I tried to >explain was that these standards are not revolutionary but evolutionary. This is not a universal rule, but is a guiding principle. > > > >Working in 'geological time' is not only a good time - it is ESSENTIAL for >business. (If they were reactive industry would never keep up with the >changes and we would be constantly re-certifying products.) No, that is not true. Industry is constantly pressing IEC to speed up its processes; that is why we now have new types of IEC documents - PAS, TS. The important matter of avoiding the need for re-certification is dealt with at the *regulatory* level - not in IEC at all - by the 'dow' timing rules, such as those adopted by the European Commission in conjunction with CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. > > > >What this means is that compliance engineers will face situations that do >not appear in the standards. This is being dealt with - rather haphazardly, it appears to me and I am taking that point up whenever possible - by the issue of official 'interpretations', which may clarify wording that proves to need it or may specify how the standard applies in circumstances, such as new technological developments, that were not envisaged when the standard was written. Interpretations are not a new concept, but in the past they were produced by bodies other than the relevant standards committee and were not widely circulated. > >It means that compliance engineers will be face the day-to-day need to make >up compliance criteria On-the-hoof; almost invariably under extreme pressure >because we are 'responsible' for holding up the job, payment and shipment. > > Interpretations, widely circulated, should eliminate this. Note that *anyone*, as far as IEC is concerned, can ask for, or propose, an interpretation, but some National Committees make it next to impossible for their people to do so. > > >The result is that the sum-total of custom and practice will flow down (via >engineers such are yourself) and find its way into TC's and Standards. Hence >things - and attitudes - will change. (For example - a few years ago you >bitterly opposed my call for double mains fusing - yet I have seen more >recent correspondence, from you, that proposed double mains fusing.) > Things change. I certainly challenged you statements about it, because: - it's not mentioned at all in IEC60065 and only obscurely in IEC60950 (editions valid at that time); - it isn't necessary in UK because we don't have reversible mains plugs; - I didn't realise that the Schuko plug is reversible. When you responded and I found out about the Schuko, I accepted your argument. That's how standards committees work. > > > > >Hence compliance engineers need the framework provided by standards but will >be expected to work outside that framework. Again, not too far, I hope. > > >In this meeting space we have had a broad input of specific needs (for the >nuts and bolts, I have received private correspondence that I was asked to >address in public - as my last email. > >BUT, what I was attempting was to stimulate the discussion to include how we >establish the scope - content - education - interpersonal and other skills >needed by compliance engineers. You did that! > > >As compliance engineers we are free thinkers - how do me ensure and >encourage that free thinking - how do we ensure that we can draw upon each >others experiences (being ever conscious that many of us are consultants and >cannot afford to become a free source of information to potential clients). Well, I used to get uptight about free-loaders - people who phoned to pick my brains without paying. But that anger didn't affect them, it just distracted me. So now I run a LIMITED free advice service, and I say when it stops being free! > > >So how do we go ahead? > > > >I believe that we must continue to provide inputs for standard development. > >This will allowing standards to become landmarks that mark our progress: and >not become millstones that hold us back. (No insult intended - quite the >opposite in fact. There are some that take a view that if a hazard is not in >covered by the standard they do not NEED to consider it. We know that is not >the INTENT of the standard, as I listed in my last email). > > > > > >Suggested path forward: > >From established compliance engineers I want to know what helped you to >develop in your career. > >From those developing and developing other - what tools do you need > >From everyone - where we go from here...... > > >Hopefully the message is a little clearer this time - sorry to all who I >confused. > > > >Best regards > >Gregg > > > OK. Notice that, in view of the difficulties people have in working through their own National Committees, I am prepared to consider taking up issues on their behalf, subject to the issue being of general significance and importance and not contrary to the UK NC position. We need people to feel that they are INVOLVED with standards, not EXCLUDED from them. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Eat mink and be dreary! ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
