Is the military environment sufficiently different to commercial to warrant separate standards? This post is by Steve Hayes, EMC & Safety Managing Director, TRaC
Keeping up to date with standards and regulations is a challenge for a test lab, yet it must be a complete nightmare for a manufacturer who dips in and out of this world when the need arises.
It's made even more complicated in the defence world since products have to comply with defence standards to meet contractual obligations and CE marking for legislative purposes, which adds to the distraction from the real work. In the case of EMC, there are so many standards it begs the question, are they all necessary?
Keeping up to date with standards and regulations is a challenge for a test lab, yet it must be a complete nightmare for a manufacturer who dips in and out of this world when the need arises.
It's made even more complicated in the defence world since products have to comply with defence standards to meet contractual obligations and CE marking for legislative purposes, which adds to the distraction from the real work. In the case of EMC, there are so many standards it begs the question, are they all necessary?
As an example, we have civilian test standards for aircraft as well as another specific defence standard for their aircraft. Surely the environment is the same (i.e. in the air or taxiing on the runway) - why do we need to repeat the tests just because the test method is slightly different? It's not as if one provides a result which is less or more safe than another, or is it?
What about ships? How often do you think a ship would break, go off course or stop working because it was tested to a slightly different test method?
The point that is being made is that there is a considerable expense in maintaining standards and testing to them, so why can't they in themselves be standardised. It is acknowledged that the limits would need to be different due to the different types of radio communication equipment and threats from enemy sources etc, but the basic test method which simulates the phenomena should be the same.
Previous Certification & Test entries:
* Military CE Marking - Let's Work Together
* Why are there so many emissions standards?
* What's the point in CE Marking military equipment?
* Navigating the approvals process for RF enabled medical devices
* Seven Reasons to Conduct Pre-Compliance EMC Testing
* And you thought your EMC tests were difficult!
* Regulation of energy efficiency presents new certification challenges
* Why does volcanic ash cause aircraft flights to be cancelled?
* 14 environments with explosive atmospheres
* Electronics in explosive atmospheres - standards stop things going bang!
* A guide to reliability testing, part 3 - Environmental Stress Screening
* A guide to reliability testing, part 2 - HASS
* A guide to reliability testing, part 1 - HALT
* Certification & Test: Flammable atmospheres - A change to the ATEX Standards for zone 2 equipment
* Certification & Test: How to make sure products comply with Noise at Work regulations
* Certification & Test: The impact of the Noise at Work Directive on your designs
* Certification & Test: How am I going to test that?
* Certification & Test: Electrical safety is still important!
* Certification & Test: Why bother with vibration testing?
* Certification & Test: Do I really need earthquake testing?
* Certification & Test: Differences between earthquake and vibration testing?
* Certification & Test: Safety - it's a complex business!
* Certification & Test: What's the point of a Notified Body?
* Certification & Test: The difference between Bluetooth and ZigBee testing?
* Certification & Test: Is above 1GHz the new Wild West?
* Certification & Test: Where have all the ZigBee products come from?
What about ships? How often do you think a ship would break, go off course or stop working because it was tested to a slightly different test method?
The point that is being made is that there is a considerable expense in maintaining standards and testing to them, so why can't they in themselves be standardised. It is acknowledged that the limits would need to be different due to the different types of radio communication equipment and threats from enemy sources etc, but the basic test method which simulates the phenomena should be the same.
Previous Certification & Test entries:
* Military CE Marking - Let's Work Together
* Why are there so many emissions standards?
* What's the point in CE Marking military equipment?
* Navigating the approvals process for RF enabled medical devices
* Seven Reasons to Conduct Pre-Compliance EMC Testing
* And you thought your EMC tests were difficult!
* Regulation of energy efficiency presents new certification challenges
* Why does volcanic ash cause aircraft flights to be cancelled?
* 14 environments with explosive atmospheres
* Electronics in explosive atmospheres - standards stop things going bang!
* A guide to reliability testing, part 3 - Environmental Stress Screening
* A guide to reliability testing, part 2 - HASS
* A guide to reliability testing, part 1 - HALT
* Certification & Test: Flammable atmospheres - A change to the ATEX Standards for zone 2 equipment
* Certification & Test: How to make sure products comply with Noise at Work regulations
* Certification & Test: The impact of the Noise at Work Directive on your designs
* Certification & Test: How am I going to test that?
* Certification & Test: Electrical safety is still important!
* Certification & Test: Why bother with vibration testing?
* Certification & Test: Do I really need earthquake testing?
* Certification & Test: Differences between earthquake and vibration testing?
* Certification & Test: Safety - it's a complex business!
* Certification & Test: What's the point of a Notified Body?
* Certification & Test: The difference between Bluetooth and ZigBee testing?
* Certification & Test: Is above 1GHz the new Wild West?
* Certification & Test: Where have all the ZigBee products come from?
After obtaining his Bachelor's degree in engineering, Jonathan worked for a number of engineering companies prior to obtaining a teaching role at the University of Hull (England). In 1995 he joined KTL, an internationally renowned test laboratory which then became TRaC, as part of the Digital Group specialising in regulatory requirements for digital telecommunications equipment. During his time at the company he has, among other things, been appointed as Senior Protocol Engineer, and Approvals and Homologation Group Manager. Jonathan has actively participated in various technical working groups for the ZigBee Allianceâ and is currently the ZigBee Qualification Group (ZQG) Lead Technical Editor. 
Steve is Managing Director for the EMC and Safety business of TRaC and has been involved in EMC and product approvals for 19 years. In addition to the day to day running of the business, Steve is actively involved in EMC standardisation both in commercial and defence areas. In addition to being the UK Principal expert on EMC standardisation of Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) products he is also the convenor of CISPR/B/WG1 who has the responsibility of writing the International standard, CISPR 11. Steve wrote the CE marking annex to the UK's defence EMC standard as well as being co-convenor of CENELEC TC210/WG9, responsible for writing a guide on approval of military systems with commercial (CE Marking) requirements.
Joe Lomako MSc is the Business Development Manager of Telecoms and Radio at TRaC. He has been involved in the testing and compliance industry for over 15 years. Prior to joining TRaC Joe specialised in EMC, EMF Exposure and Radio compliance.
Appointed Test Manager in 2007, following three years as Projects Manager at TRaC, having previously worked as Head of Environmental Testing at another UKAS accredited test house. Over 20 years' experience of modelling, testing and measurement in the structural dynamics and seismic fields.
Chris has worked in electrical safety compliance for over 17 years. Having previously worked for BSI, he joined TRaC in 1996, progressing through a number of testing roles before becoming Safety Product Manager in 2006.
Appointed Commercial Manager - Analysis in November 2009. Prior to joining TRaC, he was the Business Development Manager at Onward Technologies, an engineering services company based in India. Graham has spent over 20 years working in the CAD / CAE domain selling both engineering services and engineering systems. 
Stephen Tait joined KTL, an internationally renowned test laboratory which then became TRaC, as part of the Telecom Group specialising in telecommunications product testing for worldwide approvals. Stephen is also responsible for the Telecoms commercial activities within the TRaC group.
Simon Barrowcliff is the Director of the ATEX Notified Body at TRaC. He set up TRaC's Lancashire-based, ATEX business in 2002 and has been heavily involved in EX testing and compliance since then. Simon also runs TRaC's certification schemes for electrical safety under the IECEE CB scheme. He is a chartered electrical engineer with more than 20 years experience of product compliance for electrical and mechanical equipment.
Appointed Managing Director in November 2007. Previously he was Test Facilities Manager for Flight Refuelling, part of the Cobham group, and spent his early career in the Environmental Engineering Department of British Aerospace at Stevenage.
Brendan was appointed Sales Director in August 2009. He joined the group in 2005 as Business Development Manager for environmental test services. Before joining TRaC he spent five years in Application Engineering and Technical Sales roles for automotive test equipment. He studied Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering at Trinity College Dublin.
Leave a comment
What a user pic? Get a Gravatar!