Would the BMFA Insurance be valid if I fitted an Assan 2.4Ghz module into my Futaba FF9 Tx?

[Jonathan Cox]

Would the BMFA Insurance be valid if I fitted an Assan 2.4Ghz module into my Futaba FF9 Tx?

[Bruce Richards]

Welcome JC to the friendly forum.

 

What in particular make you think it would not be?

 

I am not an expert in this but I think as long as you are not doing something really stupid it should cover you.

Edited By Bruce Richards - Moderator on 27/12/2009 09:12:02

[Tim Mackey]

I think it may also depend on whether the unit was CE approved with its accompanying sticker and it is designed for that set.

[Erfolg]

I recognise that you believe that the CE label is important. I am not sure why.

 

I suspect, but do not actually know, that all it is a sticky label applied by the importer which indicates that either one device has been tested for compliance with EU regulations or increasingly, that the product is certified as compliant by the manufacturer.

 

This is how it should be, particularly when the government are advocates of free trade.

 

Of course Assan may well not have chosen to pursue EU certification, which I also suspect is the case of myriad of RC models imported from the Far East. We all now them, the small helicopters, the cars, small aircraft, so many types that you cannot shake a stick at them.

 

Is it a case that you can legally import them, but their use is questionable?

 

So what does that sticker confer, testing, or extra bureaucracy?

Erfolg

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Put simply it is illegal to sell equipment in any of the 27 member states without a CE mark. The mark is intended to ensure that the equipment complies with all EU standards on consumer safety, environment etc.

 

For products from within the EU the routine testing will have been done mainly by the manufacturer - but is subject to possible external audit. Depending upon the exact nature of the product some of the testing (at least on a prototype) will have had to be carried out by external bodies - for example electromagnetic compliance testing - particularly relavant to RC gear to ensure that it doesn't radiate significant power in bands other than it is supposed to! Once EMC external validation takes place any significant design change from the prototype tested has to be retested. There are serious penalities for ignoring this rule - as there are for displaying a CE mark on equipment which has not been validated at all.

 

For manufacturers outside the EU there are two possible routes - in coutries such as the USA and Japan there are local regs many of which are accepted as equivalent. So if an American product meets US consumer requirements it can, in some cases, be awarded its CE mark without further testing. For most other countries testing will be needed and there are firms of consultants in, say China or India, who can arrange this.

 

Whether you view this as just "bureaucracy" or see it as an attempt to protect consumers from "dodgy kit" is I suppose a matter of personal opinion.

 

On the OP, difficult question. In the field of medical technology for example no one would dream of using something non CE marked because should anything go wrong you would be open to prosecution and almost certainly not insured for professional liability. I don't know in the case of BMFA insurance - but personally I wouldn't take the risk if the kit is not CE marked. If it is I see no problem.

 

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 27/12/2009 13:46:09

[Erfolg]

The application of heavy/high fines, unfortunately does not seem to be indicative of the offence being serious, any more. It is often a response, particularly by UK Government, as a means of enforcing compliance with government will. So on that score I am not impressed.

 

Compliance with domestic market regulation, I find far more reassuring than a simple sticker. For many years home market regulations have been a device of protecting domestic interests. In most cases there were just nuances on the same concepts, but used as a restriction on open markets.

 

I think the actual sticker is just that, I would be more interested if the manufacturer has a certificate of compliance and for which markets.

 

Living in a world where university research departments and test house (such as Building Research) are dependant on commercial finance, there independence and integrity, are questionable.

I would be interested to know the standing of the massive toy market of RC toys have these stickers or better still certificate of compliance. Are they illegal, to sell and operate. Or is there a block exemption on some basis?

 

Erfolg

[Jonathan Cox]

Thanks for the replies,

The BMFA has sought advice from Ofcom, regarding the use of after-market plug-in modules, their statement is as follows.

 

"Ofcom have advised that replacement modules need to be individually compliant and correctly CE marked.

Additionally, the manufacturer or person who first places the module on the market in the EU, is responsible for ensuring the compliance of the overall unit (transmitter plus module).

If you are considering using such a module, you should ensure the manufacturer of the module certifies that when the module is fitted, the complete transmitter unit is compliant with current regulations”"

 

Only if you receive such confirmation can you be certain that the equipment will be legal to use.

 

It's not going to happen is it?

Edited By Jonathan Cox on 27/12/2009 16:45:39

[Erfolg]

The requirement that the manufacturer is responsible for for ensuring compliance with OFCOM regulations, regarding installation, is unreasonable. It is unreasonable from Futaba to any other module and equipment supplier.

 

As a concept within many of the EU's own stipulations on both "economic market" concepts, no with standing the international treatise that the EU is a signatory. This is the stuff of trade wars.

 

I guess the saving grace (for the HM Goverment) is that the end user is unlikely to have the financial ware with all to test the regulation in court. Then again I would not bet the Japanese and increasingly the Chinese govermrnt trade departments taking a different view.

 

With regard to individually compliant, this can simply be interpreted as "manufactured in accordance with the manufactures processes, traceability (if deemed applicable) and testing processes.

 

I suspect that if the manufacturer identifies that as far as they are concerned there is an issue, it would be resolved with EU officials, irrespective of HM Government.  

[flytilbroke]

The Regulations are backed by the rule of law. Further to Erfolgs comments, please do not attempt to mislead people into commiting an offence merely for the sake of argument.

 

If Equipment is not compliant within the Regulation agreed by all 27 deciding member States then it is illegal to use. If illegal equipment is used then it is extremely unlikely that the Insurance would accept liability in the event of a claim. THAT IS IMPORTANT!

 

Also very important for the user, use of non-compliant Equipment in the event of a claimable incident can, especially if injury is caused, lead to criminal charges.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I believe you are absolutely correct FTB in respect of illegal to sell. I am not sure it is illegal to use it - but for all the reasonas you correctly point out, in terms of liability and insurance, it would be most unwise in my opinion to use non CE marked equipment.

 

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 27/12/2009 19:53:54

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother on 27/12/2009 19:54:25

[Bert]

Just to clear up a few misconceptions:

 

The CE mark is a declaration on the part of a responsible individual, residing in the EU that a product complies with the applicable EU standards for the product.

 

Third-party testing is not required for the CE mark, all that is required is that the person who is responsible for the CE mark on the product resides within the EU and that a technical file is available to show why the product complies with the applicable standard(s).

 

Many companies do not want to take any risks and have their product third-party tested to show that they have been duly diligent. Some have the product tested to the safety standards and self-declare the EMC compliance. Some have the product third-party tested for both and others take the risk and self-declare for both safety and EMC.

 

There is no check on the validity of CE marking other than when someone complains to Trading Standards or the DOT about a product or when the Trading Standards secret shoppers buy products at random to have them tested.

 

In the case of model radio equipment the CE mark will be mostly for the EU EMC requirements which are mainly (for model radio equipment) concerned with interference with other systems.

 

There is no performance, quality or reliability testing required for the CE mark on model radio equipment. The only safety issues which would be required to be addressed would be concerned with sharp edges on the product or whether it gets hot enough in use to burn someone.

 

Where any reliability testing on products is required it is only if it is a part of the particular standard applying to that product. For example domestic audio equipment must be subjected to a series of tests to determine if it gets too hot - if it doesn't survive these tests it will not comply with the standard.

 

There have been a number of incorrect statements concerning CE marking and standards in this thread. I don't propose to visit any of them. I would point out that I have been in the compliance business for many years now so none of the forgoing is supposition. I advise clients daily on compliance issues in the EU and world-wide.

 

Bert

Edited By Bert on 27/12/2009 20:20:44

[Erfolg]

Berts posting has the look and feel of EU type regulation.

 

Some of the other posts have the feel of an overly narrow interpretation.

 

My own experience of regulation and codes of practice arising from both the EU and International bodies, is that they are not meant to be preventive, but are intended to be helpful, in setting boundaries and guidelines. I have never come across any which attempt to say this is not legal unless the exact action is taken.

 

That is not to say that HM Government follows this policy. But then again HM Government often is at odds with the EU.

 

I do find Berts posting very credible. It sets out policy and concepts which are helpful to manufactures, retailers and the public.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I freely acknowledge Bert's expertise on the issue of CE marking generally, and fully accept his point. However, the fact remains that many organisations (the majority in my view) do go to external validation particularly for EMC testing - I know because my organisation does EMC testing. Yes, the manufacturer could self validate - but unless he has his own Electro-Mag chamber he would be unwise to do so as he has no basis on which to claim his equipment is compliant. If there was a subsequent complaint against his product he would have no effective defence.

 

I think that Erfolg's questioning of the integrity of Research Institutes and Universities in this process is most unfair. As I say my Research Institute offers EMC testing - but there is no way on earth we would issue an unwarrented favourable result - nor is there anything for us in doing so. We are paid to carry out an approved test - we get the same fee whether the product passes or fails. In my experience manufactuerers want an honest result and if their design does fail the test then they value any advice on how they might modify it so as to pass. But I've never met anyone who seeks to "influence" the result in their favour.

 

Anyway - all this is somewhat off-thread. I think the really important question for us as modellers is this;

 

 "If it is illegal to sell non CE marked equipment in any EU country, which definitely is the case, what is the insurance situation if you buy kit from say China, via the internet, and its not CE marked"?

 

I don't know the answer - but it would appear from the quote from BMFA guidelines given above that you might not be insured. That would have major implications.

 

BEB

[flytilbroke]

The answers given by BEB, BMFA, and indeed mine are relevant to a model flier. The whether we like it, should it be's, and any other "don't want it comments" do not affect the practical need of the individual, which is

 

Would the BMFA Insurance be valid if I fitted an Assan 2.4Ghz module into my Futaba FF9 Tx?

 

The clear answer is YES, provided the fitted unit is suitable for the Transmitter and reciever to be used and is CE compliant and is marked so.

 

The decriers of CE are not helping at all. The only interpretations which can matter to an Aeromodeler are the ones which the Regulators, Insurers and Courts use.

 

The question posed by Jonathan Cox has been answered properly for his safety.

 

Perhaps enough has now been said on this thread? Unless Jonathan wished to continue?

[Jonathan Cox]

Thank you to all the people that have taken time to post. My main reason for the post was to ascertain if the BMFA insurance would still cover me if I "modified" my FF9 by fitting a non Futaba module.

I guess I will play it safe and speak to the BMFA and get their viewpoint on the subject.

There's no point me spending £29 per year if the policy won't cover me!

 

p.s. as someone else commented on another forum:

 

"It may all be a bit irrelevent if you used a cheap £3.99 servo in your model, does that constitute a modification to Futaba's original compliance?  I reckon it does."

 

 

Edited By Jonathan Cox on 28/12/2009 15:41:51

[Erfolg]

I also suspect that Assan module is probably not compliant in the UK, unless they are prepared to support each customer with documents which demonstrate compliance with EU regulations.

 

I assume that that importers of Corona modules are compliant, in that the importer arranges with the manufacturer to have access to the documents which demonstrate compliance of the model type.

 

The point I was trying to make, which I did not achieve effectively, is that the EU sticky label, is almost certainly confirmatory of compliance, though absence does not necessarily demonstrate no-compliance. The absence of the sticker leaves you in the position where you are trusting that the supplier is obtaining the product from a compliant supplier. I think this is the message from Bert. As one who was responsible for ensuring that project activities were compliant, I can assure you that it was not a sticky label which I expected to be collated and filled, but several tons of documents within a system which collectively demonstrated compliance with a raft of legislative requirements. 

 

My point with regard to the EU is that normally they issue a Directive which outlines the requirement of the EU. It is the member states who turn the document into national law and regulations. Also the method of implementation. It si here in recent years the our government have often opted for stringent interpretation, which in some instances have been relaxed, as falling foul of International Treaties, or simply what the EU intended. A  typical illustration is how the Scottish Parliament chose to ensure that domestic electrical installations are installed and modified in a safe manner, as against the Westminster approach. One appears to achieve the objective with a light touch, whereas the other approach, is bureaucratic, money raising and assists the IR service in the assessment of  taxable activities Generally the intention of the EU directives are helpful and designed to benefit EU citizens, not just governments or industry, although there are examples that appear to be contrary to that position.

 

As one who has worked on international regulations on two differing documents i was impressed by the approach of the authorising bodies. There were constant reminders that what was required is a framework which encourages compliance, not an approach which is a system of fences or hurdles to be jumped. That national or commercial interests or advantage, would not be allowed to colour the content. That is why I would be surprised if the EU took an absolute approach to who can install a module. That is as long as there is no clearly defined and  paramount requirement for the manufacturer to undertake the task.

 

Of course these can be murky waters, who can repair a piece of equipment or modify a system. Again the instructions given, this should not be proscriptive. The designers approval may be required, not as a device to prevent a change, but to ensure that any changes are undertaken with a controlled and a clear division of responsibility being identified or transferred. Again the idea was not create a monopoly, nor a situation where changes were made lightly, the objective was to maintain a safe system.

 

My point regarding R&D and University research, are probably not relevant to this discussion. The view stems from my own experience. In the past there were not the commercial pressures to obtain money to fund personnel and facilities. Where as today this need, place s pressures on the need to generate  projects and advice that the customer wants to hear or will pay for. If you are not deemed to be safe hands, your additional funding requirements may prove to be elusive.

 

 

[Jonathan Cox]

I spoke to someone at the BMFA today who said the Assan modules do comply with relevant specs,

 

These are the FCC and CE approvals taken from Assan's website:

 

FCC ID: VJ9XRF01 :

CE: EN 300 328 V1.7.1: 2006

EN 60950:2001+ A11: 2004
EN 301 489-1 V1.4.1: 2002

EN 301 489-17 V1.2.1: 2002
EN 50371:2002

EN 61000-6-3:2001+A11

EN 61000-6-1:2001

 

Do these numbers mean anything to anyone?

[Bert]

Jonathan

 

Yes they do.

 

They are all standards for EMC compliance except for EN 60950:2001 +A11: :2004 which is an applicable safety standard. The only parts of that standard which are likely to apply will be concerned with heating under normal and fault conditions and mechanical dangers such as sharp edges etc.

 

As stated before, performance and reliability do not come into it.

 

From the look of the declaration of conformity they are self-declaring compliance, which they are allowed to do.

 

Bert

 

Edited for spelling

Edited By Bert on 29/12/2009 12:37:32

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Hi,

 

yes the EN's are Bristish standards. And they quote the specific CE mark. But the interesting one is the FCC number. The FCC is the Federal Communications Commision in the US. What follows that i.e VJ9XRF01 is actually a validation licence for selling in the US. Now, I'm no expert on US applications but my understanding is that that bit is not self declared compliance.

 

Take a look at this forum thread

here

 

Its a boat racing forum in the US and they are having exactly the same discussion. Their conclusions may go some way to answering your question Jonathan - at least in a US context. I doubt its much different here.

 

The up and down is this looks good news for you if you want to use the module!

 

BEB

[Bert]

I don't know if Jonathan lives in the US - if he does the FCC number may be of interest - it is  irrelevant in Europe.

 

EN's are European harmonised standards.

 

British standards are BSEN's or BS.

 

Bert

[Erfolg]

My general interpretation of the thread, if the statements are correct, is that the Assan is legal for the UK.

 

Is it reasonable to assume that anyone removing or replacing a module, or even a battery is acting in a legal manner? To me that is reasonable.

 

It is surprising and reassuring how these little known Far Eastern companies have been able to satisfy the domestic sale and usage requirements. Can this explain why so many RC toys are sold through so many sales outlets? 

 

In the past, many constructed there own RC sets, from the Macgregor, Micron, Quantom, RCM&E, I am sure there will have been many more. Is it still legal to use these sets (those that work)?

 

With regard to the USA, I understood that just to change the crystal, the set had to be sent away for an authorised agent to remove the back of the set and replace the crystal. I just can not see how this can be justified. But that is their problem in the USA.

[Jonathan Cox]

Hi, I live in the UK.