The IEE's guide on EMC and Functional Safety is concerned with helping engineers and managers avoid legal problems - but I don't call this appeasement, just good practice. But the guide is also concerned with saving lives in a world where electronic control of safety-related functions is proliferating madly.
As my paper at the IEEE's EMC Symposium in Montreal and my recent article in ITEM UPDATE 2001 show - at present EMC standards don't address safety issues, and most safety standards don't address EMC-related functional safety issues. Regards, Keith Armstrong In a message dated 03/01/02 20:04:46 GMT Standard Time, ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes: > Subj:Re: EMC-related safety issues > Date:03/01/02 20:04:46 GMT Standard Time > From: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com (Ken Javor) > Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Reply-to: <A > HREF="mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com";>ken.ja...@emccompliance.com</A> > (Ken Javor) > To: cortland.richm...@alcatel.com (Cortland Richmond), > acar...@uk.xyratex.com (Andrew Carson) > CC: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > > Curiosity. How long must airbags work? A car can be driven for two decades > or more, by an uncontrolled number of owners, and with no mandatory > inspection or service. How long is a manufacturer liable for the proper > operation of those airbags? Same question for anti-lock brakes. If the > warning light comes on and is ignored, who is at fault? If the warning > light is disabled by an owner, and the next owner suffers injury due to > improper operation of either of these systems, who is at fault? Don't give > me the logical answer. I can figure that out. Knowing that the culpable > seller is not a tempting target but the manufacturer is, in the present > climate some bright lawyer will come up with a rationale for suing the > manufacturer. It is the climate that must be changed and the IEE guide that > started this thread, in my opinion, appeases this trend rather than opposes > it. > > ---------- > >From: Cortland Richmond <cortland.richm...@alcatel.com> > >To: Andrew Carson <acar...@uk.xyratex.com> > >Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > >Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues > >Date: Thu, Jan 3, 2002, 12:22 PM > > > > > > > As engineers, we should consider the safety > > implications of what we design, test or otherwise > > work on. EMI is part of that. What is considered a > > safety risk depends a great deal on corporate > > policy, the legal, political and popular climate in > > one's state of residence, and the kind of equipment > > under consideration. > > > > As it happens, the issue of pacemaker vulnerability > > is addressed in more regulations than USC 47. That > > is why, in the United States, we have not only a > > limit on microwave oven leakage, but also pacemaker > > warning signs on microwave ovens used by the public. > > > > The robotic arm is a great example. Others are > > automotive airbags, or electronically controlled > > brakes. These sort of things are the reason why > > industry associations develop limits of their own. > > Those limits accommodate both a performance > > requirement and practical aspects; they can't make > > the product too expensive to build or no one will be > > able to sell them at a profit. They can't be > > unreliable in the field or people won't buy them at > > all. And they can't cause too many problems, or the > > company will be sued. One factor weighs against > > another. > > > > We are at the balance point. > > > > Regards, > > > > Cortland Richmond > > > > (What I write here is mine alone. > > My employer does not > > Concur, agree or else endorse > > These words, their tone, or thought.) > > > > Andrew Carson wrote: > > > >> I get the idea that we a missing the whole point > >> of this discussion. > >> > >> Should we as Professional Safety Engineers and > >> Product designers consider the safety implications > >> of EMC emissions ? > >> > >> The answer is a definite Yes. We have a clear duty > >> of care and responsibility to consider all > >> implications of our products being used in there > >> intended application. Even if the consideration on > >> EMC emissions and safety is "Do not be silly." We > >> still have to at least consider it. ... > >
