CE marking

[Tim Mackey]

It will just die of natural causes Erfolg

[kc]

I think the BMFA should state which RC gear is known to comply with UK regulations.  There are only a few receivers that we are talking about.   Either the BMFA can get confirmation from the manufacturers that these recivers meet UK spec  or they have to advise us that these are not to be used in UK.

It is highly likely that these cheap Rx are to USA spec ( twice the TX power allowed in UK ) and  not specially made for European spec.

I still think the highly paid EU staff should have produced a trademark or copyright symbol that they only allow on goods that comply.  It is ludicrous to allow countries to put misleading or false marks on goods and be allowed into EU countries putting legitimate makers at a disadvantage. 

All it needs now is for someone to buy from a UK source and go to Trading Standards and complain that this is a fake CE mark........

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Sorry kc, but I disagree fundamentally here.  The BMFA have no power or responsibility to recommend or approve equipment other than advising that the presence of a CE mark shows that the manufacturer or importer has certified the equipment compliant with the rellevant requirements.

 

If fake or misleading markings are applied this is a matter for the regulatory bodies and Trading Standards. The BMFA could raise their concerns with these bodies of course if these goods are being retailed within the EU.

 

BTW, I'm at a loss to understand how a standard receiver transmits 100mw or more!  However, if people are personally importing transmitters or modules then this is a good point to check - but as the importer it is their responsibility to do so.

Edited By Martin Harris on 09/10/2010 13:07:17

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

The main problem kc is that the EU have no power to stop this. They can't prosecute a company in China. We are effectively "short circuiting" the normal control mechanism at the point of entry by cutting out the distributor and buying direct.

 

Its occured to me that the guys who are at real risk here are LMS. Suppose your local shop decided to buy in half a dozen of these rx's from Hong Kong himself to put on his shelves and sell. He could well be "taken in" by the fake mark and every time he sells one of thse he is committing serious offence for which, in theory at least, he could face a fine or even imprisonment!

 

Let's be clear here, the bad boys in this sad story are the overseas manufacturers playing this "game". They are not naive - they know exactly what they are doing and they have access to the facilities and knowledge to do this probably. Don't get the idea these are ill-informed rural sweatshops - far from it. These outfits are sophisticated companies, often set up with American, European or Japanese capital. You can't design even a clone 2.4 rx without access to leading edge CADCAM facilities.

 

I think the only way we will stop them is to "speak the only language they will listen too", boycott them for say a month and get the message back to them why. If at the end of the month we start buying again and find they haven't changed their ways then have another months boycott a little later and so on until they get the message. Flex a bit of "consumer power"! If I know Chinese manufacturers they'll soon respond once its hitting them in the pocket - where it hurts most. Forums, and mags, could be major force for good here in calling for such boycotts. Its in our long term interest. And incidently in the inetersts of the vast majority of companies that advertise on this site and in the mag.

 

BEB

[kc]

We need the BMFA to help us to decide which equip is safe to fly with.  They have in the past said that certain RC stuf is not good enough for aircraft use e.g. dry cells in 35mhz etc. So there is clear precedent.

 

This is a safety matter and the BMFA need to act.  Its  nothing to do with trade regulations but about which RC equip complies with UK RC regulations

[Erfolg]

KC

 

The strength or otherwise of wings, strength of propellers etc. are all safety matters. Would we expect the BMFA or anyone else to respond in the most general manner.

 

If the BMFA has any sense, which expect they have, they would avoid such a potentially litigious area of naming products.

 

In my opinion they have done their job, at least in part, they have stated what the issues are. They could go further, yet review of the continuing changes to the clauses of the enabling legislation to national governments makes detailed explanation somewhat problematical. I find it difficult to defend the BMFA, yet feel I must.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by kc on 09/10/2010 14:26:58:

We need the BMFA to help us to decide which equip is safe to fly with.  They have in the past said that certain RC stuf is not good enough for aircraft use e.g. dry cells in 35mhz etc. So there is clear precedent.

 

This is a safety matter and the BMFA need to act.  Its  nothing to do with trade regulations but about which RC equip complies with UK RC regulations

 They've done just the same here - they've already issues a generic warning.  As Erfolg has so rightly said, to name particular equipment would leave the BMFA (that's most of us by the way) to legal action and possible ruin.

Edited By Martin Harris on 09/10/2010 19:27:45

[John Privett]

Posted by Martin Harris on 09/10/2010 00:18:03:

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.

 

 

Not quite Martin.  BMFA (or any third-party liability insurance) will not pay out in cases of pure "bad luck."  There has to be a liability (which if necessary can be tested in a civil court) for any payout to be made.  Bit of a tangent I know,  but it's a point the BMFA stress from time to time but people often don't seem to get.

 

[John Privett]

Posted by Kevin Wilson on 09/10/2010 10:04:28:

 

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

 

It's only certain types of thing that require a CE mark - things like electrical equipment,  radio equipment,  toys (safety of), gas appliances etc. etc.  So I'm not at all surprised you found so much in your parts box with no CE marking.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by John Privett on 09/10/2010 20:16:34:

Posted by Martin Harris on 09/10/2010 00:18:03:

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.

 

 

Not quite Martin.  BMFA (or any third-party liability insurance) will not pay out in cases of pure "bad luck."  There has to be a liability (which if necessary can be tested in a civil court) for any payout to be made.  Bit of a tangent I know,  but it's a point the BMFA stress from time to time but people often don't seem to get.

 

 

 Yes, I didn't phrase that very well and it's a very misunderstood point about insurance.
 

What I should have said was unforeseen circumstance bringing about a mistake or failure attributable to the pilot or operator.

[kc]

If you look at this website

You will see that they are selling what they say are non CE marked receivers (in Britain I think )&   they say in the data that you will  not be covered by your insurance.  Surely this is ridiculous!  Who but a fool would fly something uninsured.  Why are they selling them?

 

Where is the BMFA when you need them?

Edited By Tim Mackey - Administrator on 20/10/2010 20:57:44

[Tim Mackey]

kc, please post links as per correct method.

[Myron Beaumont]

How do I get rid of flashing adds on the right hand side of my screen? Can't read the script !

Script ( it blocked out the last word Hence the edit)

Edited By Myron Beaumont on 20/10/2010 19:52:40

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

'Tis all to do with Timbo's request to kc

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

Can a mod not correct KC's post?

 

'tis a silly issue with the forum but it is what it is and we have to put up with it I guess. 

[Myron Beaumont]

Sorry everybody .I didn't realise the significance of Timbos comment

[Tim Mackey]

I do wish people would follow the correct procedure on these sort of things

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by kc on 20/10/2010 19:20:51:

If you look at this website

You will see that they are selling what they say are non CE marked receivers (in Britain I think )&   they say in the data that you will  not be covered by your insurance.  Surely this is ridiculous!  Who but a fool would fly something uninsured.  Why are they selling them?

 

Where is the BMFA when you need them?

 

I'm sure AeroModel Hut will defend themselves if they see this but as far as I can see they're taking pre-orders against completion of their testing and CE declaration.

 

What I would take issue with is this continued assertion that insurance is invalidated because there's no sticker on the package. There's no evidence that I've found to indicate that there's any possibility of this and as BEB has pointed out ad nauseum on this and other threads, you are NOT breaking any law by simply using one - but you would by selling one commercially and this firm are apparently taking the responsible route, from information on their website and other postings to this forum.

Edited By Martin Harris on 20/10/2010 21:24:40

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

Posted by Tim Mackey - Administrator on 20/10/2010 20:58:35:
I do wish people would follow the correct procedure on these sort of things

 

Tim I think all of us have done this (once usually). We all have to find out somehow!

 

It is a quirk (fault!) on the forum system, it's a shame it seems so difficult to get it engineered out.. 

 

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

This is interesting. Firstly Martin is right. It is not illegal to use, but as I understand it is illegal to sell within the EU non CE marked equipment. If this site does sell them (and it isn't at the moment) they are also taking an enormous risk...quoting the Directive itself:

 

"Article 1
The producer shall be liable for damage caused by a defect in his product."

 

and

 

"Article 3
1. 'Producer' means the manufacturer of a finished product, the producer of any raw material or the manufacturer of a component part and any person who, by putting his name, trade mark or other distinguishing feature on the product presents himself as its producer.
2. Without prejudice to the liability of the producer, any person who imports into the Community a product for sale, hire, leasing or any form of distribution in the course of his business shall be deemed to be a producer within the meaning of this Directive and shall be responsible as a producer.
3. Where the producer of the product cannot be identified, each supplier of the product shall be treated as its producer unless he informs the injured person, within a reasonable time, of the identity of the producer or of the person who supplied him with the product. The same shall apply, in the case of an imported product, if this product does not indicate the identity of the importer referred to in paragraph 2, even if the name of the producer is indicated."

 

This clearly indicates the seller's legal liability. If this company does get the device through testing then of course its perfectly proper for them to afix the CE mark themselves and they can sell them perfectly legally.

 

One final point - do I read the ad correctly? Are you really required to disable the failsafe on your Tx to use these receivers? Do we really think that is wise?

 

BEB

[Tim Mackey]

Posted by Chris Bott on 20/10/2010 22:21:43:

Posted by Tim Mackey - Administrator on 20/10/2010 20:58:35:
I do wish people would follow the correct procedure on these sort of things

 

Tim I think all of us have done this (once usually). We all have to find out somehow!

 

It is a quirk (fault!) on the forum system, it's a shame it seems so difficult to get it engineered out.. 

 

 

 

Well its not a quirk / fault of the forum system when long term members just dont bother to insert links correctly - which then causes the problem..... is it ? 

Rant over .

[David Gilder]

Wow

 

An angry Timbo!! lol

 

Thats gonna cost someone a stickybun credit!!!! LOL

 

Chin up Timbo!! It could be worse...... (like for me sat here at work till 0700, talking to idiots who cant run their own lives!!)

 

 

[Erfolg]

Biggles

 

Hang your head in shame, tut, tut

 

You are guilty of a politicians trick, that of selectivity and partial disclosure.

 

any person who imports into the Community, a product for sale, hire, leasing or any form of distribution in the course of his business.
 

Not quite the same meaning.

 

The same is true with the first part, the liability aspect. If the full text is read, it is about liability from failure due to design, of a compliant product, not specifically a non compliant product.. Plus there is a 10 year time limit.

 

Reading the full text, the aim is to ensure that a product is safe and remains compliant for a period for at least 10 years.

 

If the linked site is EU based, no amount of disclaimers, absolves the business from the requirements of the CE marking requirements. Again the enabling document and the passage abstracted by Biggles in conjunction with many other requirements of the document makes clear. If a CE mark is required for EU standards compliance, then selling is an illegal act, within the EU market.

 

That is my interpretation of the enabling document.

 

 

Edited By Erfolg on 21/10/2010 09:18:24

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Sorry Erfolg - I don't get your point here. The sentence you quote is exactly the same as it appears in the version I quoted from the Directive - where have I abridged it? I don't see why its not quite the same meaning? Also, as far as I am aware the quotes I gave of articles 1 and 3  from the Directive are complete. Its possible I am reading from an older/younger, or unknown to me abridged version, but I don't thnk so.

 

BEB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Had me scratching my head as well!