Back at a former employer, we were fond of saying that there was a difference between "Safe" and "Compliant". These scenarios are perfect illustrations.
If there is a dormant fault in your equipment which could mask a safety hazard, that is "Compliant" but not "Safe". I personally would try and reduce the exposure to a minimum using whatever means possible and then document this situation to executive management for their express approval. Consider yourself on the witness stand with a lawyer asking you if you were aware of the situation which caused their client to have come to harm. What would you say? How would you feel? Cheers, Marko From: ext Peter L. Tarver [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 6:39 AM To: PSTC Subject: RE: fan question Amen. The test house might attempt to invoke the forward to a standard, if it contains text that provides them an out, where there is clear engineering rationale and a very specific risk of a hazard being evaluated not anticipated by the standard. Even so, the sand beneath their feet would be shifting. For instance (not a directly related one), during previous test house employment, I stopped an evaluation and refused a certification for a coffee percolator, because it barely warmed water. OTOH, if a double fault scenario seems plausible, you may wish to perform the testing for your own edification, irrespective of the content of the safety standard. I might be inclined to do such a thing on equipment intended for installation in a hazardous location. This is more a matter of personal conscience and corporate cya. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Homologation Services Sanmina-SCI Corp. San Jose, CA peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com > From: John Woodgate > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 2:57 AM > > I read in !emc-pstc that Gibling, Vic: > >A view of an international test house considers > two simultaneous faults > >if one is 'invisible' to an operator. The > example given was an > >overtemperature control - status unknown by > operator - and a blocked > >fan. > > This is 'gold-plating' the standard, if two-fault > conditions are not > covered in it, and any test-house that rejects a > product on that basis > should be boycotted and reported to the > regulatory authorities, unless > they restrict their activity to *advising* on > such a situation. > -- > Regards, John Woodgate 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
