Those non CE orange receivers

[Tom Wright 2]

Are asian firms advertising none C/E marked r/c gear to the EU then committing an offence?

[Wolfie]

CE marking of such receivers doesn't really mean anything.

 

RC equipment requires testing to EN300 220. For RC equipment all the Rx tests are not required. Only the Tx tests are mandatory.

There are also EMC tests to EN301 489-3 but this is to check the Rx wont interfere with something else.

 

Under the EU R&TTE directive, receivers can be self-certified by manufacturers so no test lab is going to perform any testing.

 

Your range check is probably the first real test even for a CE marked Rx.

Edited By Wolfie on 07/02/2011 14:51:00

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Thinking about your question a bit more Tom.

 

Suppose you had a device, say a Tx, that was pumping out all sorts of spurious RF and was causing problems and OFCOM, or some other authority, "get on the case". If your kit is CE marked and you bought it in good faith, then I think you have no problem, because as a private individual you are not expected to have the sort of test equipment necessary to detect this problem. The presence of the Mark is your protection.

 

However, the person who certified the system as compliant does have a problem. They would have to be able to show the authourities that this was simply an isolated "rogue" example and not design fault. You, as the user/purchaser would have the normal path of recompense through the retailer as the device clearly does not perform to spec and is not of merchatable quality.

 

But...if the same thing happened and your kit was not CE marked I think your position is less clear. I do not think the authorities would have any case against you, but they could (and probably would) impound the equipment and of course you would have no course for redress against the manufacturer etc, because nobody claimed it was compliant! In such cases I guess that OFCOM and Trading Standards would be very interested in where you got the device from!

 

BEB

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by tom wright 2 on 07/02/2011 14:48:13:

Are asian firms advertising none C/E marked r/c gear to the EU then committing an offence?

 

Under European law - yes. Despite what Wolfie says about it not mattering! The problem is of course the company is outside European juristriction as is the website often!

 

BEB

 

PS Actually to be clear - it is a bit of a moot point in that there is some debate about where an internet sale takes place - on the website, in the bank, at the supplier, at the buyers place of residence?

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/02/2011 14:58:02

[Wolfie]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/02/2011 14:02:56:

Not quite. If an individual buys from China then my understanding is that, while yes he is the importer, if it is soley for his personal use then he is still not committing any offence. Because he is not selling in the EU.

 

 

Correct, the offence is committed by 'placing the equipment on the market'.

 

But,...how he is fixed if he tried to sell it is more complex. If he sells it as a bona fide "private sale" to say a clubmate or via a classified ad, then again no problem as far as I can see. But if there was any suggestion that he was in fact a "dealer" and was selling these, then my understanding is he would indeed be committing an offence.

 

 

The R&TTE directive does not apply to second-hand equipment. It can be sold without marking without an offence being committed.

 

 

Of course in practice it would be difficult to distinguish these in some cases. Take for example the case where 10 club members go together to benefit from reduced postage and one person orders 10 rx's on their behalf. Is he a dealer?

 

 

Only if it could be proved that he was 'placing the equipment on the market'. ie adverts were found etc. Otherwise it would be un-provable.

 

 

BEB

[Wolfie]

Posted by tom wright 2 on 07/02/2011 14:48:13:

Are asian firms advertising none C/E marked r/c gear to the EU then committing an offence?

 

No. The offence requires the equipment to be physically in EU. The legal definition of 'placing on the market' is given in the 'Blue Guide' published by the CEC.

Edited By Wolfie on 07/02/2011 15:04:42

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Quite right Wolfie - but I am citing the case of what we might call the "informal dealer". Is it then "second hand"? If someone buys 10 rx's from HK and sells them around his clubmates - are they second hand? Its not clear cut.

 

And don't forget compiance with EMC Directives is every bit as important, in the eyes of the law, as any other regulation. And CE mark certifies that compliance - the fact that it is self certification again makes it no less an offence if you fail to certify or if you are not compliant.

 

BEB

[Grasshopper]

As a recently retired engineer who spent his life designing low-power radio modules, micro-controller based systems etc. I would suggest that if these receivers pass a normal range test then they can be used without restriction,

 

I was heavily involved in the sharp edge of gaining 'CE' approval on a number of products and there are two paths.

 

1 - you go to a lab and spend a fortune having the unit checked for spurious emissions which is what the CE folk are after. With a receiver there will probably not be a realistic range test done - just a lab simulation so the CE mark gives no range guarantee.

 

2 - you 'self certify'. This is effectively a kind of a dodge where manufacturers keep a record of design activity and also of the 'many tests we have performed' and then stick on the CE stickers. The record file is then stuck in a filing cabinet in case anyone later complains to the authorities about poor performance - and in my experience this rarely if ever happens.

 

So - the CE sticker in itself is no guarantee of performance and I always rely on my own thorough range test to verify the performance of my radio link. This has, so far, not let me down.

 

Peter

 

.

[JayCee]

Hi All

 

Have been following this, and other associated threads relating to, in my case HK Orange FASST 2.4Ghz (Futaba compatible) Rx

 

Moving away for a moment from the legal aspects relating to relevant CE marks

 

I have two of these which at present I use solely in Park Flyer's, by which I mean I only use them away from our club site (Local Park) they appear to perform faultlessly the range is stated at 1.5 Km+ which I don't dispute.

 

The reason I haven't used them at the club site is my concern relating to possible interference to other users, naturally I would hate to be responsible for any accident relating to problems from my equipment.

 

However, in every other respect I would be happy to use them in my larger Sports models.

 

Although I have searched the Web so far I have found no reports of any problems with these imported Rx's.........have you?

 

JC

 

 

[Wolfie]

The EMC directive does not apply to radio equipment. It is the R&TTE directive (which also has provision for EMC).

I was just trying to point out that if you think that the 'quality' of your Rx is going to be better by purchasing CE marked units, then thats not the case.

 

If someone buys a dozen units on-line and imports them for club members I can't see anyone bothering. Today we have people who will bring in container loads, set up a bogus company, sell the units, then disappear (usually with the VAT money as well). This is the problem area, not individuals.

 

As far as most administrations are concerned (OFCOM included) receivers are irrelevant if they are not related to initiating a transmitter or having some specific security function.

 

(I will come clean here; I'm a techno-legal consultant for a large Japanese radio manufacturer in charge of all EU certification)

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Grasshopper on 07/02/2011 15:17:06:

 

So - the CE sticker in itself is no guarantee of performance and I always rely on my own thorough range test to verify the performance of my radio link. This has, so far, not let me down.

 

Peter

 

.

 

 

Couldn't agree with you more Peter!

 

BEB

[Tom Wright 2]

I think BEB has come in at a significantly different angle by comparison to previous CE threads and has opened new and interesting avenues to this subject.

The thread has also attracted the attention and input from other highly qualified people that  help make what is probably the best RC site even better! 

Edited By tom wright 2 on 07/02/2011 15:40:53

[Erfolg]

The CE aspect does not seem to go away.

 

We know there is a certificate of compliance from some European test house.

 

I would be surprised if QA documentation for item does not exist for the design and manufacturing process.

 

I thought it was possible to self certificate for CE marking with these documents being available, I guess they may be in Chinese.

 

Am I mistaken?

 

I also thought we had established that it is not illegal to import for personal use non CE marked items as long as they are compliant with EU regulations.

 

From what i can gather there is still an argument with the World Trade Organisation that the CE requirement could illegal, being an artificial trade barrier. I would guess as the CE marking is so wide ranging in its application, that the issues are about the detail of compliance with respects to those who seek access to the EU market, relating to cost of compliance and reasonableness. Does any one know if this is resolved or is ongoing business? Not that it really matters to us, other than as consumers.

 

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I agree Wolfie - the chance of anyone being interested in the scale on which we do things is tiny. I also agree that the CE mark is not gaurentee of quality - as i said to Peter above.

 

The things to hang on to I believe are:

 

if, like 99.9% of us, you are just a typical modeller buying stuff for yourself you have no real legal problems for you here and you should rely on your own range testing and in flight observations to judge the quality of a system.

 

If you are genuinely a retailler/dealer then I don't envy your position which is much more complex.

 

The other points - club selling etc. - are of largely academic intest only.

 

BEB

[Erfolg]

Ah!I now see I somehow missed a page out, so a lot of the dialogue I missed. Apologies.

 

However I am still interested with how the CE marking business is going on with the World Trade Organisation. I was left with the impression that many countries see the CE marking as a trade barrier in breach of many of the articles with respect to free trade that EU has signed up to. I do realise that this is a broad issue not specifically related to CE markings for Rx's.

[Tom Wright 2]

As a matter of interest i e mailed FLY SKY who make the electronics that go into HK range of own brand TX RX ,they confirmed that these sets do meet the 100MW max required in the UK.

[John-Frederick Davie]

Interesting comments concerning quality/performance etc with orange Rx's.

I did my own practical tests to check the devices out - principle of which is the range check. I ran each check a few times aligning the model at different attitudes to the Tx. None of these different positions affected the range check results.

Using Spk DX6i TX and checking 2 off 6200 Rx's (no sats) and following standard range check procedure..........

Rx No1 - 30 yards satis - 45 yards lost bind (no control movements)

Rx No. 2 - 30 yds satis - 48 yards lost bind.

Using the same Tx checking 2 off Orange Rx's - R620 and R615 (both without Sats) and following the same RC procedure.....

Rx No1 R615 - 30 yards satis - 98 yards lost bind

Rx No2- R620 - 30 yds Satis - 110 Yards lost bind (also very tricky to see control movement!!)

Conclusion Orange easily outperforms Spek on a standard range check.

Test No2 Signal loss - Principally control inputs and observation plus timing from bind loss to signal recovered and control input restored. Range at 10 yds observing throttle channel

Both Spek 6200 - between 2 and 4 secs to regain bind and restore control.

Both Orange Rx - 1 to 1.5 sec to regain bind and restore control.

I hasten to point out these were simple ad hoc tests, under standard conditions - However I do confess to being a retired Trials Engineer in the weapons field, so the tests were reasonably conceived. My objective was to gain a measure of confidence in the equipment I am using at the time.

Regards JayDee