Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
Thank you for posting what I excerpted below. At the risk of this thread flaring up again, I have to state that just because a cable assembly or loom does not have an over-braid shield or screen does not qualify it as being unshielded or unscreened. The ONLY excuse for an over-braid is extremely high radiated immunity threats, either swept frequency or time domain (intentional transmissions or EMP), or lightning protection, either direct or indirect. It IS common practice to individually shield signals which require it, either to contain emissions and/or protect it from cross-talk or intentional transmissions. As I pointed out with a numerical example in an earlier response, an individual shield provides more than adequate protection to even the smallest signal likely to be carried on such a wire (usually a twisted, shielded pair) if the function of that signal is flight critical. -- From: andrew.p.pr...@baesystems.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Tue, Sep 17, 2002, 1:56 AM By unscreened I mean the cables have no overall screen as used by military cableforms. --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
We actually tested the equipment with the wiring installation and it took several months and quite considerable amount of work to get the equipment to meet DO-160C with the cabling (supplied by Boeing). No the system is not flight critical however other systems that have been supplied by our company are and these also use unscreened cable. By unscreened I mean the cables have no overall screen as used by military cableforms. ERA QinetiQ have tested various PED such as Laptops, CD Walkmans, Portable DVD players, Video Walkmans, Camcorders, Furbies, etc. Aside from the Furbies and Laptops the majority rest of the items tested met DO-160C limits, however, after an incident with a Video walkman which was reported to open the waste dump valve on a 747 the item was purchased from the owner by the UKCAA and tested. This was found to be at several frequencies 20-30dB in excess of limits. Examination of the unit found that it had been modified at some time. This poses the question what controls are there on PEDS. They can be tested as new items but their integrity may be compromised when they are repaired or modified by an unauthorised repairer. Iam sure that if you get in touch with Eric Stevens of ERA, Dr Nigel Carter of Qinetiq or Dave Hudson UKCAA they can give you more information. Regards Andy Andrew Price Principal Development Engineer (EMC Specialist) BAE SYSTEMS Avionics A125 Christopher Martin Road Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL tel: +44 (0) 1268 883308 email: andrew.p.pr...@baesystems.com *** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. *** --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: New EU regulations - civil aviation
The navigation systems which are protected by regulation were developments of the 1940's, and -- except for interference! -- work pretty well. They are analog technology, using phase and amplitudes of audio frequency tones to determine position and/or deviation from course. For landing, the ILS system transmits amplitude modulated signals between 108 and 112 MHz (if I remember correctly -- it s been a long time) with a 90 Hz modulated beam to one side of the runway, and a 150 Hz modulated beam on the other. Where the two tones are demodulated at equal strength is (with a properly aligned and functioning system) along the runway center line. The receiver has filters to discriminate between the tones, but interference can displace the indicated position to one side or the other, with quite possibly fatal results. The Glide Slope system operates similarly at around 330 MHz, with beams aligned upwards at an angle such that equally demodulated tones indicate a correct rate of descent. VOR is also an analog system. VOR operates (if I remember rightly) between 112 and 116 Mhz. Basically, it is a scanning directional array, which sweeps its azimuthal pattern maximum around 30 times each second. At the same time it transmits a subcarrier of (approximately) 10 KHz, which is frequency modulated with a reference 30 Hz, such that when the beam is North, the phase of the tones demodulated in an aircraft North of the VOR station will agree with each other. The difference in phase between the received signal modulated as a result of the patterns' rotation, and the subcarrier's modulation, indicates direction to the aircraft from the VOR station. Again, this is easily interfered with. A substantial area around each VOR must be restricted for construction, as even multipath from re-radiated signals will cause the indicated bearing from the station to be off. All of these systems have detectors to indicate the absence of a tone, and a warning flag pops up in its display to show an invalid signal (or none). However, the flag is only an indicator of total absence of tone. If an interfering signal presents a tone, the receiver will not distinguish between it and a valid signal, and the flag will not be displayed. Consequently, the safety of these systems depends on how well their signals are received. Cortland --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
I was not arguing that PEDS should be allowed to operate throughout ascent and descent. I was responding to Woodgate's comment that if PEDS are causing a problem, there must be serious immunity issues with aircraft avionics. I know in detail what the immunity requirements are, and I know that PEDS do not emit anywhere near the immunity levels. PEDS interfere with radio reception. Woodgate quite correctly pointed out that unless the rfi occurred at the radio tuned frequency, it can be considered an antenna port immunity concern, because immunity requirements can and are levied to protect radio receiver out-of-band sensitivity. -- From: Warren Birmingham war...@comfortjets.com To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com Cc: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 4:01 PM Ken, you may be right but it is like trying to convince the FAA that there is no harm in using car gas in airplanes. There are just too many ways for uncontrolled fuel to become contaminated from unknown sources. With respect to the EMC and immunity issues, it is not the technical issues that are of concern, but rather the liability and publicity of even being accused of causing interference, regardless of how it got there. The potential for it exists, and lives are potentially at stake. Who would argue with this? I am also an aviation consultant as well as an engineering one. Most devices are allowed to be used in flight. Cell Phones and 2-way pagers cause too much GROUND interference when used from the air and THAT is the primary reason they are not permitted. They use more resources than intended when used from the air. By the way, I was consulting to a company that did not even test ANY of their equipment to FCC Part 15, and I discovered that they were out of specification for Class A by several db. We had our attorney negotiate with the FCC, who wanted to know if ANY of the over-limit frequencies fell into the aviation bands. They did not, so we had to fix the problems with no other action required other than submission of new compliant verification reports. There is concern for this even originating outside of the aircraft. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Monday, Sep 16, 2002, at 09:56 US/Pacific, Ken Javor wrote: Most of what you say below meshes with my experience and does not contradict my basic premise, that PEDs can only interfere through aircraft antennas. I am curious what the resolution of the Boeing installation was. Equipment undergoing EMI qualification must be tested with a representative flight harness. Did your company test with screened cables and then try to force Boeing to use the same? Bad form. Did Boeing try to buy an off-the-shelf system qualified with screened cables and then install the system using unscreened cables? Equally bad form. This must be worked out before design and testing for procured equipment, and if the equipment is off-the-shelf, then the qualification configuration harness must be installed, or the equipment must be requalified using the planned/existing configuration wiring. Another question of interest: Was the system you provided Boeing flight critical? There is one place that what you say could be interpreted to imply that PED emissions get into aircraft wiring: It has been found through surveys carried out on aircraft by ERA and QinetiQ that the interference appears to get into these systems from certain locations within the aircraft where cable run reside under certain seats. Consider the physical parameters. The PED is small and low power and while it may not meet RTCA/DO-160, it does not blanket the entire aircraft with emissions. The intensity falls off rapidly with separation from the source. This is clearly a case where the emitting device is electrically small over almost the entire communications band. Assume the emitted radiation intensity were 100 mV/m, 5-6 orders of magnitude above CISPR limits. The transfer function of coupled current to a cable above ground is 1.5 mA per Volt/meter. I can supply that derivation if you like, but it is inherent in both RTCA/DO-160D and MIL-STD-461D/E. It is different in IEC 61000-4-6, but that is because the ground plane is far away or nonexistent in buildings and the cable-under-test is a more efficient pick-up device in that environment. Anyway, the coupled current would be 150 uA, and that assumes at least one half wavelength of the cable was immersed in a plane wave with precisely the right orientation relative to the wire in order to get that. If the victim circuit contains information represented by low potentials, such as below 0.1 Volt, then I would expect the cable carrying that signal to be shielded, as in a twisted shielded pair. 150 uA riding on a shield
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
from a 150 Ohm source impedance.] Given the original 100 mV/m assumption, that translates into a coupled common mode potential of 7.5 mV and the conclusion still stands: no possibility of interference. -- From: andrew.p.pr...@baesystems.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 8:55 AM Ken During the mid 90s we manufactured equipment that was installed on 747s which was tested to RTCA/DO-160C and all the cables on that aircraft for that system were unscreened. Boeing informed us that they would not permit screened cables due to the increase in weight that would then affect the passenger cargo carrying capability of the aircraft. I know that rf signals are coax and that certain control signals are screened for flight critical systems. It isn't so bad for newer aircraft but some of the older ones that use Omega and the earlier flight nav systems have reported interfernce with these systems and the autopilot. When the passengers have been requested to switch off their equipments the interference has dissappeared. It has been found through surveys carried out on aircraft by ERA and QinetiQ that the interfernce appears to get into these systems from certain locations within the aircraft where cable run reside under certain seats. Incidents of interfernce breakthough on coms have been more difficult to identify. Investigations are still being carried out. If you want more data suggest you get in touch wuth Dr Nigel Carter @ QinetiQ or Eric Stevens @ ERA. Regards Andy Andrew Price Principal Development Engineer (EMC Specialist) BAE SYSTEMS Avionics A125 Christopher Martin Road Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL tel: +44 (0) 1268 883308 email: andrew.p.pr...@baesystems.com ** * This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ** * --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: New EU regulations - civil aviation
Bob, A good idea, but we are dealing with some older technology in many cases. The VOR (VHF Omni-Range) receivers are based on a pair of pulses from the navigation station. The station puts out a rotating pulse with a sync pulse when the rotating pulse is at 0 degrees (magnetic). Your receiver sees the sync pulse and then times the delay to the second one. 30 RPS for the rotation rate. If an impulsive emission occurs with enough strength your receiver responds to it and you can lose track of what radial you are on, giving a spurious indication on the CDI (course deviation indicator). No error checking in this analog system. Updating it would not be practical given the number of aircraft equipped to use it and the cost of replacing the equipment. The airlines might absorb the cost (by charging higher fares), but your average GA bugsmasher pilot just isn't going to be too hot on spending several thousand dollars on new equipment. It's easier to control PEDs on the plane. BTW, I'm one of those GA bugsmasher pilots. I'm not too hot on my club having to spend the money, either. We'd have to charge members more for the use of the planes. Yuck. Welcome aboard and please keep your laptop computer stowed and turned off for the duration of the flight. Besides, there are more interesting things to look at out the windows than on that screen grin. Ghery Pettit Intel Boring holes in the sky and loving every minute of it! -Original Message- From: Robert Johnson [mailto:john...@itesafety.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 11:58 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: New EU regulations - civil aviation One thing that surprises me about avionics is the reports of spurious and misleading readings from instruments due to interference. It seems in these days of error checking and verification that we should be able to make instruments which are either confident of the data received or capable of reporting the reason they cannot display. Bob Johnson ITE Safety --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: New EU regulations - civil aviation
One thing that surprises me about avionics is the reports of spurious and misleading readings from instruments due to interference. It seems in these days of error checking and verification that we should be able to make instruments which are either confident of the data received or capable of reporting the reason they cannot display. Bob Johnson ITE Safety attachment: Robert Johnson.vcf
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
I've been watching this discussion with interest. It appears you are agreeing with each other - at some length. (grin) The subject of interference to airborne navigation and communications receivers seems never to go away. Since it was the probability of just such interference which lead the FAA to impose its PED regulations, this is perhaps appropriate. I have seen emissions from non-ITE PED's (CD players) that greatly exceeded the FCC class B limit, and it is not unreasonable to expect interference to receivers from many kinds of device. I seem to recall mention in one of the EMC magazines (Conformity?) a couple of years ago about a GSM telephone *in checked baggage* having been identified as causing direct EMI to aircraft systems. This, apparently because GSM amplitude modulation is more conducive to rectified logic upset than a steadily emitting frequency-modulation. And of course the hold is NOT a typical location for customer-carried PED's. There was also mention further back (this may be on the FAA Web site - a useful compendium of reports) of a test in which a handy-talky of some type was, as an experiment, used to transmit inside the cockpit of an airliner, with noticeable upset to instruments at the flight engineer's station. This could be direct interference from a PED, though hardly _likely_ in flight, especially with today's security restrictions on where passengers may go. I personally recall an incident about 7 years ago in which a product of my then-employer, a laptop computer, was reported to have caused an aircraft on a long over-water flight to take a left bank of two degrees, which trim upset went away when the computer was turned off. However we were unable to identify emissions which could have caused this. I do not believe that passenger AC power, MOST likely culprit, was provided at the time, so that seems to be ruled out, and the energy in the LCD backlight inverter was far enough away from wiring that it SHOULD not have done so. Cortland --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
Most of what you say below meshes with my experience and does not contradict my basic premise, that PEDs can only interfere through aircraft antennas. I am curious what the resolution of the Boeing installation was. Equipment undergoing EMI qualification must be tested with a representative flight harness. Did your company test with screened cables and then try to force Boeing to use the same? Bad form. Did Boeing try to buy an off-the-shelf system qualified with screened cables and then install the system using unscreened cables? Equally bad form. This must be worked out before design and testing for procured equipment, and if the equipment is off-the-shelf, then the qualification configuration harness must be installed, or the equipment must be requalified using the planned/existing configuration wiring. Another question of interest: Was the system you provided Boeing flight critical? There is one place that what you say could be interpreted to imply that PED emissions get into aircraft wiring: It has been found through surveys carried out on aircraft by ERA and QinetiQ that the interference appears to get into these systems from certain locations within the aircraft where cable run reside under certain seats. Consider the physical parameters. The PED is small and low power and while it may not meet RTCA/DO-160, it does not blanket the entire aircraft with emissions. The intensity falls off rapidly with separation from the source. This is clearly a case where the emitting device is electrically small over almost the entire communications band. Assume the emitted radiation intensity were 100 mV/m, 5-6 orders of magnitude above CISPR limits. The transfer function of coupled current to a cable above ground is 1.5 mA per Volt/meter. I can supply that derivation if you like, but it is inherent in both RTCA/DO-160D and MIL-STD-461D/E. It is different in IEC 61000-4-6, but that is because the ground plane is far away or nonexistent in buildings and the cable-under-test is a more efficient pick-up device in that environment. Anyway, the coupled current would be 150 uA, and that assumes at least one half wavelength of the cable was immersed in a plane wave with precisely the right orientation relative to the wire in order to get that. If the victim circuit contains information represented by low potentials, such as below 0.1 Volt, then I would expect the cable carrying that signal to be shielded, as in a twisted shielded pair. 150 uA riding on a shield should not cause any problems to any flight critical signal, even with a pigtailed shield termination. For instance, if the pigtail termination yielded a transfer impedance as high as 50 Ohms at some frequency, the resultant common mode coupling to the interior pair would still only be 7.5 mV. Again I contend that Boeing and Airbus would not route a flight critical signal with a threshold of susceptibility that low. And if the circuit is totally unshielded, that implies it is a discrete or other relatively high level signal, where information is carried in such a away that it takes Volts of induced potential to cause an upset. Coupling to an unshielded wire above ground occurs at a transfer function of 75 mV per Volt/meter. [ Cf. IEC 61000-4-6, coupling efficiency of 1 Volt per Volt/meter, open circuit from a 150 Ohm source impedance.] Given the original 100 mV/m assumption, that translates into a coupled common mode potential of 7.5 mV and the conclusion still stands: no possibility of interference. -- From: andrew.p.pr...@baesystems.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 8:55 AM Ken During the mid 90s we manufactured equipment that was installed on 747s which was tested to RTCA/DO-160C and all the cables on that aircraft for that system were unscreened. Boeing informed us that they would not permit screened cables due to the increase in weight that would then affect the passenger cargo carrying capability of the aircraft. I know that rf signals are coax and that certain control signals are screened for flight critical systems. It isn't so bad for newer aircraft but some of the older ones that use Omega and the earlier flight nav systems have reported interfernce with these systems and the autopilot. When the passengers have been requested to switch off their equipments the interference has dissappeared. It has been found through surveys carried out on aircraft by ERA and QinetiQ that the interfernce appears to get into these systems from certain locations within the aircraft where cable run reside under certain seats. Incidents of interfernce breakthough on coms have been more difficult to identify. Investigations are still being carried out. If you want more data suggest you get in touch wuth Dr Nigel Carter @ QinetiQ or Eric Stevens @ ERA. Regards Andy Andrew Price Principal Development Engineer (EMC Specialist) BAE
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
Very good point. Obviously the cables could be very long, at least as long as half the aircraft, if the 12 Vdc supply were situated in the exact center of the aircraft. Since the laptops were qualified running of a 50/60 Hz power mains, the measured CSIPR emissions don't apply to this mode. Would it be too much to expect that the adapters for sale for this purpose do meet stringent RE limits? Or do they fall in a a regulation crack - CISPR wouldn't apply and somehow I don't see these devices being qualified to RTCA/DO-160. But while all of this is interesting and food for thought, it STILL doesn't affect my basic premise, that PEDs interfere with aircraft operation via aircraft antennas, not aircraft wires. -- From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 1:15 AM I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in 0h2i001lcfw...@mtaout04.icomcast.net) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Sun, 15 Sep 2002: My response is that conducted path is so lossy as to be negligible. But how long are the cables? I think we have more or less agreed that it is *radiation* from consumer devices interfering with aircraft radio reception where the potential problem arises. Hence the threat with the 12 V supplies is *radiation from the cables*, due to conducted emissions form the consumer device. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
Actually the mil-std appendix does exactly what you suggest; the following is excerpted from the discussion for RE102, which controls radiated electric field emissions: The basic intent of the requirement is to protect sensitive receivers from interference coupled through the antennas associated with the receiver. Many tuned receivers have sensitivities on the order of one microvolt and are connected to an intentional aperture (the antenna) which are constructed for efficient reception of energy in the operating range of the receiver. The potential for degradation requires relatively stringent requirements to prevent platform problems. There is no implied relationship between this requirement and RS103 that addresses radiated susceptibility to electric fields. Attempts have been made quite frequently in the past to compare electric field radiated emission and susceptibility type requirements as a justification for deviations and waivers. While RE102 is concerned with potential effects with antenna-connected receivers, RS103 simulates fields resulting from antenna-connected transmitters. -- From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 1:17 AM I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in 0h2i002t0im...@mtaout03.icomcast.net) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Sun, 15 Sep 2002: Another way to say this is to paraphrase the appendix of MIL-STD-461D/E, which states categorically that there is no relationship between radiated emissions and radiates susceptibility requirements, they are for different purposes and the magnitudes between the respective limits are not to be considered a design margin. That is true, but it would be more helpful if it went on to explain what the 'different purposes' are. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: New EU regulations - civil aviation
This discussion is touching on several aspects of Personal Electronic Devices (PED's) aboard aircraft. Bruce Donham, of Boeing, has a two-year-old paper with some hard data at: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_story.html Also, here's a cross reference to PED Electronic regulations: http://aviation-safety.net/events/ped/ped-regl.htm And, 106 pages of Aviation Safety Reporting System PED related history, current to May 2002, at: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets/ped.pdf This whole subject is about as confusing as EMF's and cancer. Regards, Ed Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Systems San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis -Original Message- From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 6:33 AM To: andrew.p.pr...@baesystems.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation I do realize there is a big difference in the use of cable shielding/screening between general and commercial aviation practices. However the same general aviation aircraft that get by with little or no cable shielding/screening also have no electronic critical flight controls, so it is a wash. Any aircraft with flight controls qualified to RTCA/DO-160A will also have its maximum degree of automation limited to using the autopilot, possibly in conjunction with navigation inputs from aircraft NAV receivers. Both the rf (coax) and the base-band signal inputs into the autopilot would be shielded in my experience. I would definitely NOT expect personal electronics to interfere with such control systems (except for that all-important radio link). I would also expect that as an older aircraft gets avionics upgrades, with avionics qualified to RTA/DO-160D, that the cables connecting to the new avionics must be upgraded if the certification is to maintain validity. Specifically, if a new avionics upgrade were form, fit and function compatible with the old part, but required a shielded harness to meet RTCA/DO-160D, then that cable would have to be retrofitted along with the equipment. Am I being overly idealistic and out of touch here? In any case I reiterate: basic systems engineering practices mandate that a (non-rf) signal that carries flight critical information should be piped through the aircraft such that neither cross-talk nor stray emissions from other electronics cause interference. Along these lines, there are those who mourn the passing of the old term, rfi, because the term evoked the concept of RADIO interference, rather than the general term electromagnetic interference, which is global in its meaning. We need to consciously retain the idea that stray (unintentional) rf emissions from non-antenna connected electronics have the potential to create only rfi. -- From: andrew.p.pr...@baesystems.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 1:57 AM Firstly all avionic equipment is qualified to RTCA/DO-160 (European equivalent EUROCAE ED-14). All new equipment is test to DO-160D however there is still equipment installed on aircraft that was originally tested to DO-160A. Overtime the DO-160 has become more stringent with tighter emission levels and high immunity test levels which includes HIRF testing. There is one problem that arises from this as most of the cabling installed on the aircraft is unscreened. This is for weight saving reasons. Therefore with alot of older aircraft having a mixture of new and old equipments installed using cabling that is unscreened it is reasonable to assume that some Passenger Portable devices such as Gameboys, Laptop Computors, Mobile Phones, etc. will if that passenger happens to be sitting above a cable run cause interference with one or more aircraft systems. The UKCAA keeps a log of all reported incidents. Regards Andy Andrew Price Principal Development Engineer (EMC Specialist) BAE SYSTEMS Avionics A125 Christopher Martin Road Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL tel: +44 (0) 1268 883308 email: andrew.p.pr...@baesystems.com --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
Ken During the mid 90s we manufactured equipment that was installed on 747s which was tested to RTCA/DO-160C and all the cables on that aircraft for that system were unscreened. Boeing informed us that they would not permit screened cables due to the increase in weight that would then affect the passenger cargo carrying capability of the aircraft. I know that rf signals are coax and that certain control signals are screened for flight critical systems. It isn't so bad for newer aircraft but some of the older ones that use Omega and the earlier flight nav systems have reported interfernce with these systems and the autopilot. When the passengers have been requested to switch off their equipments the interference has dissappeared. It has been found through surveys carried out on aircraft by ERA and QinetiQ that the interfernce appears to get into these systems from certain locations within the aircraft where cable run reside under certain seats. Incidents of interfernce breakthough on coms have been more difficult to identify. Investigations are still being carried out. If you want more data suggest you get in touch wuth Dr Nigel Carter @ QinetiQ or Eric Stevens @ ERA. Regards Andy Andrew Price Principal Development Engineer (EMC Specialist) BAE SYSTEMS Avionics A125 Christopher Martin Road Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL tel: +44 (0) 1268 883308 email: andrew.p.pr...@baesystems.com *** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. *** --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
I do realize there is a big difference in the use of cable shielding/screening between general and commercial aviation practices. However the same general aviation aircraft that get by with little or no cable shielding/screening also have no electronic critical flight controls, so it is a wash. Any aircraft with flight controls qualified to RTCA/DO-160A will also have its maximum degree of automation limited to using the autopilot, possibly in conjunction with navigation inputs from aircraft NAV receivers. Both the rf (coax) and the base-band signal inputs into the autopilot would be shielded in my experience. I would definitely NOT expect personal electronics to interfere with such control systems (except for that all-important radio link). I would also expect that as an older aircraft gets avionics upgrades, with avionics qualified to RTA/DO-160D, that the cables connecting to the new avionics must be upgraded if the certification is to maintain validity. Specifically, if a new avionics upgrade were form, fit and function compatible with the old part, but required a shielded harness to meet RTCA/DO-160D, then that cable would have to be retrofitted along with the equipment. Am I being overly idealistic and out of touch here? In any case I reiterate: basic systems engineering practices mandate that a (non-rf) signal that carries flight critical information should be piped through the aircraft such that neither cross-talk nor stray emissions from other electronics cause interference. Along these lines, there are those who mourn the passing of the old term, rfi, because the term evoked the concept of RADIO interference, rather than the general term electromagnetic interference, which is global in its meaning. We need to consciously retain the idea that stray (unintentional) rf emissions from non-antenna connected electronics have the potential to create only rfi. -- From: andrew.p.pr...@baesystems.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Mon, Sep 16, 2002, 1:57 AM Firstly all avionic equipment is qualified to RTCA/DO-160 (European equivalent EUROCAE ED-14). All new equipment is test to DO-160D however there is still equipment installed on aircraft that was originally tested to DO-160A. Overtime the DO-160 has become more stringent with tighter emission levels and high immunity test levels which includes HIRF testing. There is one problem that arises from this as most of the cabling installed on the aircraft is unscreened. This is for weight saving reasons. Therefore with alot of older aircraft having a mixture of new and old equipments installed using cabling that is unscreened it is reasonable to assume that some Passenger Portable devices such as Gameboys, Laptop Computors, Mobile Phones, etc. will if that passenger happens to be sitting above a cable run cause interference with one or more aircraft systems. The UKCAA keeps a log of all reported incidents. Regards Andy Andrew Price Principal Development Engineer (EMC Specialist) BAE SYSTEMS Avionics A125 Christopher Martin Road Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL tel: +44 (0) 1268 883308 email: andrew.p.pr...@baesystems.com *** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. *** --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
Firstly all avionic equipment is qualified to RTCA/DO-160 (European equivalent EUROCAE ED-14). All new equipment is test to DO-160D however there is still equipment installed on aircraft that was originally tested to DO-160A. Overtime the DO-160 has become more stringent with tighter emission levels and high immunity test levels which includes HIRF testing. There is one problem that arises from this as most of the cabling installed on the aircraft is unscreened. This is for weight saving reasons. Therefore with alot of older aircraft having a mixture of new and old equipments installed using cabling that is unscreened it is reasonable to assume that some Passenger Portable devices such as Gameboys, Laptop Computors, Mobile Phones, etc. will if that passenger happens to be sitting above a cable run cause interference with one or more aircraft systems. The UKCAA keeps a log of all reported incidents. Regards Andy Andrew Price Principal Development Engineer (EMC Specialist) BAE SYSTEMS Avionics A125 Christopher Martin Road Basildon, Essex SS14 3EL tel: +44 (0) 1268 883308 email: andrew.p.pr...@baesystems.com *** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. *** --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in 0h2i002t0im...@mtaout03.icomcast.net) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Sun, 15 Sep 2002: Another way to say this is to paraphrase the appendix of MIL-STD-461D/E, which states categorically that there is no relationship between radiated emissions and radiates susceptibility requirements, they are for different purposes and the magnitudes between the respective limits are not to be considered a design margin. That is true, but it would be more helpful if it went on to explain what the 'different purposes' are. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in 0h2i001lcfw...@mtaout04.icomcast.net) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Sun, 15 Sep 2002: My response is that conducted path is so lossy as to be negligible. But how long are the cables? I think we have more or less agreed that it is *radiation* from consumer devices interfering with aircraft radio reception where the potential problem arises. Hence the threat with the 12 V supplies is *radiation from the cables*, due to conducted emissions form the consumer device. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
I agree that we agree. The reason I responded in so much depth on this thread is that I consider the underlying issue behind the terminology very important, and I was dismayed during an earlier similar thread at some of the responses posted on this forum. The issue I am referring to is that RE are controlled to protect radio receivers, and not electronics in general. Another way to say this is to paraphrase the appendix of MIL-STD-461D/E, which states categorically that there is no relationship between radiated emissions and radiates susceptibility requirements, they are for different purposes and the magnitudes between the respective limits are not to be considered a design margin. -- From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 2:29 PM I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in 0h2h0068wpv...@mtaout06.icomcast.net) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Sun, 15 Sep 2002: We are getting off subject, in that the CISPR requirements listed below don't apply to avionics, only to the personal electronics people carry on board. I thought we were discussing your very restricted 'definition' of immunity. However, I don't think we really disagree very much on the actual issues, just a bit on the terminology. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
My response is that conducted path is so lossy as to be negligible. Consider that the 12 Vdc is developed by conversion from either aircraft 28 Vdc, or 400 cycles. In either case, that converter or power supply must meet the conducted emissions requirements of RTCA/DO-160, or its European equivalent. The 12 Vdc loads do not interface directly with aircraft power. Further, aircraft avionics, including radios, must meet stringent conducted susceptibility/immunity requirements on input power ports. Although I am not familiar with the European equivalent, I am sure it is the same way, because it was a British influence that placed similar requirements in RTCA/DO-160 and MIL-STD-461. I refer here mainly to Dr. Nigel Carter of the UK. These conducted susceptibility/immunity requirements simulate the effect of powerful radio transmissions coupling to the aircraft power bus, and are at levels orders of magnitude above the CE limits placed on aircraft avionics. I would say that it is a highly unlikely path for influencing aircraft avionics, although I would also say that if I, as an EMC engineer working for a major air-framer, were procuring a 12 Vdc supply for this use, I would push to characterize its input/output isolation from 0.15 - 400 MHz, for the sake of completeness. By input/output in this case I mean injecting a signal on the 12 Vdc output, and measuring the resultant signal on the aircraft power side. And I would measure this both differential and common mode, as I would expect different performance for different modes. But that would be strictly a CYA file, not a hard requirement. -- From: Warren Birmingham war...@comfortjets.com To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Sun, Sep 15, 2002, 3:41 PM This is not so. Many aircraft now have personal 12v ports under each seat for personal electronic devices. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Sunday, Sep 15, 2002, at 10:28 US/Pacific, Ken Javor wrote: The point is that personal electronics carried on board an aircraft interact with the aircraft ONLY via the radiated emissions route. --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
This is not so. Many aircraft now have personal 12v ports under each seat for personal electronic devices. Warren Birmingham Epsilon-Mu Consultants (510) 793-4806 email: war...@epsilon-mu.com website: http://www.epsilon-mu.com On Sunday, Sep 15, 2002, at 10:28 US/Pacific, Ken Javor wrote: The point is that personal electronics carried on board an aircraft interact with the aircraft ONLY via the radiated emissions route. --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in 0h2h0068wpv...@mtaout06.icomcast.net) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Sun, 15 Sep 2002: We are getting off subject, in that the CISPR requirements listed below don't apply to avionics, only to the personal electronics people carry on board. I thought we were discussing your very restricted 'definition' of immunity. However, I don't think we really disagree very much on the actual issues, just a bit on the terminology. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
We are getting off subject, in that the CISPR requirements listed below don't apply to avionics, only to the personal electronics people carry on board. However, the real issue is not unique to CISPR, or DoD, or RTCA/DO-160 or the European equivalent. It has to do with how you control undesired electromagnetic interactions. I have a slide which describes this graphically, which I can send directly to anyone interested, but in keeping with forum rules, I am not broadcasting an attachment. What the side does show is that radiated emissions requirements control interference to antenna-connected radio receivers. Radiated immunity requirements impose minimum operational requirements on ordinary (non-radio) electronics when in close proximity to an intentional rf transmission. The point is that personal electronics carried on board an aircraft interact with the aircraft ONLY via the radiated emissions route. Mr. Woodgate is certainly correct that if antenna port immunity requirements are not adequately administered, then aircraft functions relying on radio reception are unnecessarily endangered. I am familiar with US DoD requirements levied on antenna ports. Perhaps someone else on the forum can speak to similar but non-DoD requirements. -- From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Sat, Sep 14, 2002, 11:53 PM I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in 0h2g00dsl78...@mtaout02.icomcast.net) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Sat, 14 Sep 2002: Immunity in the sense used in the EMI world excludes the mechanism by which an unintentional emission causes rfi. The whole object of most CISPR standards is to prevent unintentional emissions causing RFI. While most of them deal only with the limitation of emissions, CISPR 14-2, 20 and 24 include immunity requirements. In the case of CISPR 20, the immunity requirements apply to receivers. What IS excluded from 'immunity' is on-channel interference with receivers, since the effects of this depend very greatly on things such as the type of modulation used for the wanted signals. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in 0h2g00dsl78...@mtaout02.icomcast.net) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Sat, 14 Sep 2002: Immunity in the sense used in the EMI world excludes the mechanism by which an unintentional emission causes rfi. The whole object of most CISPR standards is to prevent unintentional emissions causing RFI. While most of them deal only with the limitation of emissions, CISPR 14-2, 20 and 24 include immunity requirements. In the case of CISPR 20, the immunity requirements apply to receivers. What IS excluded from 'immunity' is on-channel interference with receivers, since the effects of this depend very greatly on things such as the type of modulation used for the wanted signals. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
See my response to Messrs. Hopkins and Birmingham. I flagged this very issue. The US DoD has extensive requirements on receiver out-of-band sensitivity, but there are none in the US commercial equivalent to MIL-STD-461, RTCA/DO-160, Sections 16-21. There may well be requirements elsewhere, I don't know, but I expect someone on this forum would know. Anyone on this forum from Collins Radio? -- From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Sat, Sep 14, 2002, 2:19 PM I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in 0h2f00ctawl...@mtaout03.icomcast.net) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Sat, 14 Sep 2002: To the best of my knowledge, personal electronics interacts with aircraft operation by interfering with radio navigation receivers. That is not an immunity concern. But it IS an immunity concern. Unless it is claimed that all these devices coincidentally interfere with reception by emitting on-channel. Some receivers have, AIUI, very limited immunity to off-channel emissions. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
Mr. Hopkins did NOT disagree with me at all on a technical basis, but he did misunderstand the meaning of immunity in an EMI frame of reference, and so did the other gentleman, Mr. Birmingham. In general, EMI requirements are divided into emissions and immunity, and these are further subdivided each into conducted and radiated, thus generating the familiar CE, RE, CI, and RI requirements and test methods. CE requirements protect radio receivers from interference on their input power leads. RE requirements protect radios from interference coupling into their antennas. CI (swept frequency) and RI requirements protect non-antenna-connected electronics from the effects of intentionally transmitting radio antennas in their immediate vicinity. Immunity in the sense used in the EMI world excludes the mechanism by which an unintentional emission causes rfi. That eventuality must be controlled by levying RE limits. If this is unclear to anyone, I will expand upon it but I think it is an obvious point (with one important exception - requirements on receiver out-of-band responses). The final issue that Mr. Hopkins raises about non-rf signal wires being upset by stray emissions from personal electronics is the one I labeled impossible or a case of extremely poor systems engineering. Coupling to wires from RE even orders of magnitude above RE limits couples sub-millivolt levels to wiring, not to mention that any sensitive wires are shielded. I have worked in aerospace for over twenty years (not continuous) and have never seen a flight critical system depend on microvolt-level signal reception - except at an antenna terminal. -- From: Michael Hopkins michael.hopk...@thermo.com To: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Sat, Sep 14, 2002, 3:29 PM I disagree -- it certainly IS an immunity concern. First of all, radio navigation receivers ARE flight-critical avionics since they are directly coupled to aircraft controls. Most commercial airliners are flown a large part of the time on auto-pilot, which gets its input directly from the nav receivers (and now frequently GPS receivers). One might argue that it isn't dangerous if the airplane just goes in a different direction -- unless of course there is another airplane scheduled to be in that airspace -- but landings also are frequently automated via the use of ILS receivers which in turn control glideslope -- descent rates, engine speed, direction, etc As a pilot, I can tell you that a lap top computer, scanners, AM/FM receivers can all cause nav and comm receivers to be upset. Also, keep in mind autopilot controls are simply electronic boxes connected by lots of wires -- these may not be antennas, but I would hope someone is concerned about the immunity of this system to rf -- hate to be on a low (zero) visibility approach and has someones laptop suddenly emit the signal that upsets any electronics in any way My opinion. Michael Hopkins michael.hopk...@thermo.com - Original Message - From: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com To: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 1:58 PM Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation To the best of my knowledge, personal electronics interacts with aircraft operation by interfering with radio navigation receivers. That is not an immunity concern. Does any one on this forum know of a proven case of personal electronics interfering with non-antenna-connected flight-critical avionics? I don't, and further I would say it was either impossible, or the result of extremely poor systems engineering. -- From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Sat, Sep 14, 2002, 1:50 AM I read in !emc-pstc that Raymond Garner raymond.gar...@casa.eads.net wrote (in sr-511...@ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Wed, 11 Sep 2002: Equipments/systems/aircraft are designed, tested and certified way beyond the current EMC legislation They why all the hysteria about passengers' low-power portable equipment causing disastrous interference with the aircraft systems? My impression is that there is something seriously lacking in the immunity requirements for some aircraft systems. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
I disagree -- it certainly IS an immunity concern. First of all, radio navigation receivers ARE flight-critical avionics since they are directly coupled to aircraft controls. Most commercial airliners are flown a large part of the time on auto-pilot, which gets its input directly from the nav receivers (and now frequently GPS receivers). One might argue that it isn't dangerous if the airplane just goes in a different direction -- unless of course there is another airplane scheduled to be in that airspace -- but landings also are frequently automated via the use of ILS receivers which in turn control glideslope -- descent rates, engine speed, direction, etc As a pilot, I can tell you that a lap top computer, scanners, AM/FM receivers can all cause nav and comm receivers to be upset. Also, keep in mind autopilot controls are simply electronic boxes connected by lots of wires -- these may not be antennas, but I would hope someone is concerned about the immunity of this system to rf -- hate to be on a low (zero) visibility approach and has someones laptop suddenly emit the signal that upsets any electronics in any way My opinion. Michael Hopkins michael.hopk...@thermo.com - Original Message - From: Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com To: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 1:58 PM Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation To the best of my knowledge, personal electronics interacts with aircraft operation by interfering with radio navigation receivers. That is not an immunity concern. Does any one on this forum know of a proven case of personal electronics interfering with non-antenna-connected flight-critical avionics? I don't, and further I would say it was either impossible, or the result of extremely poor systems engineering. -- From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Sat, Sep 14, 2002, 1:50 AM I read in !emc-pstc that Raymond Garner raymond.gar...@casa.eads.net wrote (in sr-511...@ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Wed, 11 Sep 2002: Equipments/systems/aircraft are designed, tested and certified way beyond the current EMC legislation They why all the hysteria about passengers' low-power portable equipment causing disastrous interference with the aircraft systems? My impression is that there is something seriously lacking in the immunity requirements for some aircraft systems. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
I read in !emc-pstc that Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com wrote (in 0h2f00ctawl...@mtaout03.icomcast.net) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Sat, 14 Sep 2002: To the best of my knowledge, personal electronics interacts with aircraft operation by interfering with radio navigation receivers. That is not an immunity concern. But it IS an immunity concern. Unless it is claimed that all these devices coincidentally interfere with reception by emitting on-channel. Some receivers have, AIUI, very limited immunity to off-channel emissions. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
To the best of my knowledge, personal electronics interacts with aircraft operation by interfering with radio navigation receivers. That is not an immunity concern. Does any one on this forum know of a proven case of personal electronics interfering with non-antenna-connected flight-critical avionics? I don't, and further I would say it was either impossible, or the result of extremely poor systems engineering. -- From: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation Date: Sat, Sep 14, 2002, 1:50 AM I read in !emc-pstc that Raymond Garner raymond.gar...@casa.eads.net wrote (in sr-511...@ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Wed, 11 Sep 2002: Equipments/systems/aircraft are designed, tested and certified way beyond the current EMC legislation They why all the hysteria about passengers' low-power portable equipment causing disastrous interference with the aircraft systems? My impression is that there is something seriously lacking in the immunity requirements for some aircraft systems. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
I read in !emc-pstc that Raymond Garner raymond.gar...@casa.eads.net wrote (in sr-511...@ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com) about 'New EU regulations - civil aviation' on Wed, 11 Sep 2002: Equipments/systems/aircraft are designed, tested and certified way beyond the current EMC legislation They why all the hysteria about passengers' low-power portable equipment causing disastrous interference with the aircraft systems? My impression is that there is something seriously lacking in the immunity requirements for some aircraft systems. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: New EU regulations - civil aviation
Amund Sorry to disappoint you but the short answer is no. This directive deals with aircraft certification and is just tying together the process required in getting an Airworthiness Certificate for a new aircraft. However if you follow the process of certification EMC is included and uses either EUROCAE41 or RTCA-DO160 foe civilian aircraft. I can not recall exactly where it is written but it was agreed quite early on that the process of certifying airborne equipments was quite adequate without further legislation. Equipments/systems/aircraft are designed, tested and certified way beyond the current EMC legislation Regards Ray Garner CASA.EADS(part of AIRBUS) [quote]Hi all, From the EMC guideline document, Chapter 5.5.1.6 (Apparatus totally excluded (emission and immunity) from the EMC Directive), I quote: Equipment intended for use in aircraft in flight covered by the Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 So, EMCD do not apply for equipment installed in an aircraft. On September 7 2002, the following document was published in the EU Official Journal: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2002/l_240/l_24020020907en00010021.pdf or get via http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/oj/2002/l_24020020907en.html This new regulation, is it the first step for including EMCD and CE marking for all relevant equipment which shall be installed in aircrafts ? Best regards Amund Westin / Oslo, NORWAY --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list [/quote] -- Replies to this message may be posted in the following public forum: New EU regulations - civil aviation (http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/direct/topic/a/ID511544)
New EU regulations - civil aviation
Hi all, From the EMC guideline document, Chapter 5.5.1.6 (Apparatus totally excluded (emission and immunity) from the EMC Directive), I quote: Equipment intended for use in aircraft in flight covered by the Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 So, EMCD do not apply for equipment installed in an aircraft. On September 7 2002, the following document was published in the EU Official Journal: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2002/l_240/l_24020020907en00010021.pdf or get via http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/oj/2002/l_24020020907en.html This new regulation, is it the first step for including EMCD and CE marking for all relevant equipment which shall be installed in aircrafts ? Best regards Amund Westin / Oslo, NORWAY --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
