CE marking

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

Thats true Tony...I'm a Futaba man not a Spekky guy but the Rx looks exactly the same as this one which claims to be an "Orange" unit...indeed the pictures look the same!!!!

 

You are right BEB...I guess double sided tape is the order of the day....I normally bury my Rxs in foam but I understand that Futaba 2.4 units should not be buried in foam to allow sufficient cooling.....

[Erfolg]

Steve

 

Elsewhere in this thread, there is also a link to Giant Cod for the same Rx. So the Futaba compatible 2.4 is probably covered.

 

Timbo has concerns regarding the Spektrum version, where no one has posted a site as yet.

 

Well done.

 

I suspect that Biggles has concerns regarding the reliability of these and similar products, principally on the grounds of safety. I also think some have concerns with respect to IP. Yet when it comes to coding, I wonder where we would be if some one successfully gained copyright on "While counter > 0"  etc?  So much is in principal repetitious and common to many applications, that there needs to be a  sensible interpretation of coding copyright .

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

Ah.....sorry Erfolg...missed that bit!!!

[Erfolg]

Steve

 

There is no need at all to say sorry, none at all.

 

The more references to retail sources, that are UK based, the greater is the confidence that at least one retailer is aware sufficiently to require CE marking and full compliance (not only technical).

 

To think, when we started, I just dismissed the logo, as another inconsequential blob.

 

Ah, Biggles

 

Being an ex-engineer, i just leave it there. Well not quite. I never firmly secure my Rx. I arrange a compartmented area, to contain the Rx, I then arrange soft type material(foam), to loosely locate the device. It probably does not matter these days as ceramic coils etc not used are they? and I now only fly electric.

Edited By Erfolg on 08/10/2010 15:57:54

[Tim Mackey]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother on 08/10/2010 15:10:43:

Slight off thread - but I'm curious. Looking at the rx in this advertisment there is no case. How do folks mount it? I mean I normal fix my standard Futaba ones with double sided tape - but this is just a bare board (static sensitive?) I wouldn't have thought tape a very good idea. So comeon - spill the beans.

 

BEB

 

The whole unit is encased in a tough heatshrink, and then simply velcro'd in place.

[Biggestgerbil]

Now I am in the right thread (Thanks to Biggles Elder Brother)

 

My latest "Orange" 6 Ch Rx is CE 'd.

 

It arrived today08/10/10 (Ordered 24/09/10 that's only 14 days )

Photo attached, to prove that it is claiming to be CE legal.

It's like a little fieldmouse.

 

Presumably I am now legal??

 

By the way, This one bound first time and maintained its bind for several on/off cycles.

 

The one I bought on e-bay is en-planed and working well.  (It crashed yesterday but that was pilot error, WHAT!! yes, I admit it.  This time I am going to try reinforced concrete for the nose of my Wot4)

 

BEB says that this is a "China Export" mark.  It looks like a CE mark to me, but thats the whole point, aint it.

BG

[Wingman]

This thread just cost me 21 quid

[kc]

What is the precise difference between the mark shown in the photo and a genuine CE mark?  Looks the same to me, except for a minute differnce in spacing.

[Tony Smith 7]

Posted by kc on 08/10/2010 19:19:28:
What is the precise difference between the mark shown in the photo and a genuine CE mark?  Looks the same to me, except for a minute differnce in spacing.

 

 That's all the difference there is, a minor difference in the symbol, but a big difference in the meaning.

 

http://www.icqc.co.uk/en/china-export.php 

 

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

How is anyone supposed to make head or tail of this?  The explanation Tony has linked to is entirely contradictory to the one, straight out of the horses mouth of the European Commission, posted earlier.

[kc]

So all these highly paid EU officials and MEP's etc failed to get introduce a mark that was unique, copyright and unambiguous!  Unbelievable......not really!

 

Clearly we need a statement from the BMFA to say either these are legal and OK to use or these are not OK for aicraft flown by BMFA members.

 

Especially bearing in mind what it says on the Giant Cod site quote"

TFR8 Headsup

September 20 , 2010

Please note that there are many differences between some brand and FrSky, especially in binding procedure and failsafe setting.

Due to different failsafe settings between transmitter and FrSky TFR8, users must disable failsafe on the transmitter side. Otherwise you will notice a jitter during a period of time on the channel you set failsafe.

HS Mode is only applied for high-speed digital servos. Other servos should select FS Mode, otherwise servos will get heat or even burn out.

"

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

Well they may or may not pass through every single scrutiny hoop, but this one just caused me to make the wierdest Rx mount I've ever seen....

 

 

[Biggestgerbil]

Not everyone likes these little guys, but crucifiction??

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Chris Bott on 08/10/2010 19:50:14:
How is anyone supposed to make head or tail of this?  The explanation Tony has linked to is entirely contradictory to the one, straight out of the horses mouth of the European Commission, posted earlier.

 

I think I "decoded" the EU official response in an earlier post.

BEB 

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by kc on 08/10/2010 19:59:38:

So all these highly paid EU officials and MEP's etc failed to get introduce a mark that was unique, copyright and unambiguous!  Unbelievable......not really!

 

Clearly we need a statement from the BMFA to say either these are legal and OK to use or these are not OK for aicraft flown by BMFA members.

 

Hi kc, I think that's a bit hard! They are not the villians of the piece here. Its the cynical attempt to mislead by the manufacturers which is the problem.

 

I would suggest that the last thing you want is an "official statement" from anyone! If an organisation has to "go public" with an official statement on this that they may have to defend legally the only thing they can say is "If you know it doesn't have a CE mark you shouldn't be using it". A statement they have already made.

 

The best advice might be to stay "low profile" say nowt. And stick to your story "I thought it was a CE mark gov'nor".

 

As I've said many times in this thread using a non marked device is not "illegal" in itself - provided the device does comply with the standards - which of course you can't know because it hasn't been tested. So you are taking a small risk that it might not be compliant - in which case you would be committing an offence - albeit a minor and somewhat technical one. Selling an unmarked device in the EU is an offence - a potentially serious one.

 

Would you be insured? The consensus from earlier discussions is that its probably unlikely that our insurer would use such a technically to worm out of a claim. But we can't know that of course.

 

On balance, tempting as they are - I'll not be buying one of these rx's.

 

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 08/10/2010 22:45:38

Edited By Tim Mackey - Administrator on 08/10/2010 23:37:53

[Tim Mackey]

BEB - I think you meant to say ILLEGAL so I have editted your post.

Correct me if I am wrong

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I do feel there's a great deal of emotive reaction to this subject.  As far as I can see (this is my opinion not based on any formal qualification but on listening to the BMFA insurance expert and various research) insurance is there to cover any accident caused by equipment failure, inexperience, ineptitude or just plain bad luck.

 

You cannot expect insurance to cover you against a deliberate act and particularly an illegal one but as BEB has said time and time again, the CE mark is a requirement for sale not use and buying via a recognised supplier would be a pretty good cover against the unlikely event of prosecution for using out of spec. equipment.

 

You'd have to make your own mind up about using a £10 receiver in a  > 7kg model and possibly be prepared to defend your decision in having "satisfied yourself that the flight could be safely made" with the cheap receiver if it caused an incident that was investigated, when the "average" user sees fit to spend maybe 10 times that amount in that class of model, but it may well be considered reasonable to use one on a lightweight model especially if they build up a good reputation over time.

 

Of course the BMFA has to publish advice against a worst case scenario but anything in the handbook other than reference to air law is purely advice from our national body.  They are not in a position to state categorically that equipment A is legal and equipment B is not - that would be a legal minefield!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Tim Mackey - Administrator on 08/10/2010 23:38:43:

BEB - I think you meant to say ILLEGAL so I have editted your post.

Correct me if I am wrong

 

Tim,  you're absolutely correct - as always!

 

Thanks

 

BEB

 

PS  I think there is a great deal of common sense in what Martin says above.

[Biggestgerbil]

 

The best advice might be to stay "low profile" say nowt. And stick to your story "I thought it was a CE mark gov'nor".

 

 

Trouble is, ignorance of the law is no defence.

BG

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

...and raising the profile of a grey area tends to make it black and white!

[Kevin Wilson]

I am with BEB and Martin on this one. If you force a definitive statement it will be either not definitive OR (more likely) an exclusive covering stop everything!

 

To cynicaly throw a spoiler into this circular thread.

I have gone over my models and looked through my parts box and found many flight critical parts that are not CE marked. CE rubber bands anyone?

How about the home made control horns...........

Best I take up knitting...

 

Edited By Tim Mackey - Administrator on 09/10/2010 11:05:19

[Tim Mackey]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother on 09/10/2010 01:01:23:

Posted by Tim Mackey - Administrator on 08/10/2010 23:38:43:

BEB - I think you meant to say ILLEGAL so I have editted your post.

Correct me if I am wrong

 

Tim,  you're absolutely correct - as always!

 

Thanks

 

BEB

 

PS  I think there is a great deal of common sense in what Martin says above.

 

Oh I wish BEB...I wish

I also think Martin has it pretty well summed up too - and I did state in my original thread on these cheapy clone receivers, that I wouldnt be putting one in large, expensive, or heavy models.

I think they are probably fine in the small foamies that so many of us have these days.....and thats exactly what I bought mine for.

Several of my models for the slope for example, are simple light 2 channel models, and it always annoyed me that the most basic "official" spektrum Rx unit that I could buy was 6 channel and in a couple of cases, more expensive than the actual model itself.

[Kevin Wilson]

Well stated Tim.

I am also involved in a low cost class of RC car racing. There was a suggestion of moving to brushless motors and I baulked at paying more for the motor/esc than all the rest of the car put together..

 

Horses for courses springs to mind.

We are responsible for our actions and launching something unairworthy is irresponsible whether it is due to inappropriate choice of electronics or poor build quality. I would wager the later is the cause of more 'unplanned landings' than anything other than lack of pilot skill.

 

((thanks for the edit of my previous post. I prefer my word, but understand the change)) 

[Erfolg]

In many respects I agree with Timbo and some of Biggles views.

 

Yet Tony 7 showed us that certificates appear to exist (and that is the same with any of the manufactures) for the Futaba compatible product Certificate of compliance. I also now it has been argued they mean nothing, I disagree, we all have our positions.

 

Price was mentioned as an arbiter of quality. History withe respect to the UK market shows this not always to be true, be it Japanese Cars, Motor cycles, Hi Fi etc. All being low cost and high quality when introduced into the market. B&O, have always been high cost, great styling, technically OK. Conversely German cars have been towards the top end of the market, yet technically competent, with good quality," reassuringly expensive". In my opinion price does not always denote quality.

 

Would I stick a cheap radio in a 7kg model, no. Nor would I stick an expensive Rx in a 7kg model. I think use of any model at this size, needs a lot of heart searching and strict control in operation. I am sure that I am a minority in this view. No amount of stickers, certificates and Designer Labels, guarantees safe operation.

 

What may need consideration by the worriers and some others, is that there is a 10 year limitation on consumer protection Enabling document Page 27. Will you junk your Rx after 10 years, probably more importantly after any bad landing. Which will in principal void the protection, as the goods operated in accordance with CE requirements at the time of sale. etc, etc, etc,

 

We all know now it is illegal to sell a non CE stickered product where applicable in the EU and it is not illegal to use (if in accordance with regulations)  or purchase a non marked product .

 

I am minded that importing goods which are in compliance EU regs, is not an issue. Use is a question of fitness for purpose.

 

I am more concerned with the low cost 2.4 toys, which are everywhere, in flying, floating and terrestrial toys than Frsky products etc. With respect to may what happen in use, than the devices.

 

This has certainly been educational adventure for me. I can see these regulations being a meal ticket for many, similar to QA and ISO 9001.

 

When will Timbo close the thread?