What's the difference between 300 pax on each floor of an A380 with n
toilets on each floor and 300 pax on the lower floor of a 747 with n
toilets? And if they use 2 carousels for 600 pax, instead of 1 for 300
pax? And I doubt there will be many solder joints in a carousel system
anyway: no electronics required for a switch, contactor, electric motor!
Brian
Nic Bowker wrote:
> I suspect it's not so much the plane he's worried about, its the fact that there will be 600 other people on board.
>
> Can you imagine the queues for the toilets once the film has finished?!?! Or how about the baggage carousel - that will now randomly breakdown through unleaded reliability issues?
>
> Nic Bowker
> Technical Resources Adviser
> PLASA Ltd.
> 38 St Leonards Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex, BN21 3UT, UK.
> Tel: +44 (0)1323 410335 : Fax: +44 (0)1323 646905
> Email: [log in to unmask] : Website: www.plasa.org
>
> Join one of the largest trade communities in the industry.
> www.plasa.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
> Sent: 03 November 2006 12:50
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>
>
> What's so different between an A380 and any other plane? Boeing and
> Airbus have a common programme for all flight electronics techniques and
> lead-free.
>
> Brian
>
> Timothy McGrady wrote:
>
>>And they fire lead-free bullets as well. That's right - they used depleted
>>uranium! Much better for the environment and human health. No chance of
>>getting lead poisoning if one of those bullets lodges in your brain.
>>
>>I will not fly on an A-380. Period.
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "John Burke" <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 1:54 PM
>>Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>>
>>
>>
>>>So we should be through this by about 2010.......8-)
>>>
>>>What really worries me is this item:
>>>
>>>http://www.empf.org/programs/leadfree.htm
>>>
>>>My personal opinion is that if you take a military weapons system
>>>(fighter
>>>aircraft etc) and make it lead free the safest place to be in order of
>>>preference would be:
>>>
>>>1 A long way away from it
>>>
>>>2 Above it
>>>
>>>3 Behind it
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Leadfree [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Kirschner
>>>Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:37 AM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>>>
>>>And the written-off parts get sold to brokers, and they sell them to
>>>other
>>>brokers, and so on, and eventually somebody remarks them and counterfeits
>>>the packaging to identify them as compliant so they can sell them so some
>>>poor soul desperate for allocated compliant parts...
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Timothy McGrady [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:24 AM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]; (Leadfree Electronics Assembly
>>>Forum)
>>>Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>>>
>>>
>>>Mike:
>>>
>>>Yes, I agree, the mixing of parts has been a big problem. Some companies
>>>have written off entire inventories of non-compliant parts for just that
>>>reason.
>>>
>>>Tim
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Michael Kirschner" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: "Timothy McGrady" <[log in to unmask]>; "(Leadfree Electronics
>>>Assembly Forum)" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:56 PM
>>>Subject: RE: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tim,
>>>>
>>>>Excellent point regarding standards. Unfortunately we are generally
>>>>seeing
>>>>just the opposite occur around the world: regulations beget standards
>>>>rather
>>>>than the other way around. Having the standard in place first ensures
>>>>that
>>>>industry understands how to actually accomplish something and can
>>>>actually
>>>>do it.
>>>>
>>>>In my humble opinion the primary risk for one of the big companies
>>>>likely
>>>>to
>>>>be a target is the production problem of mixed parts, rather than
>>>>improper
>>>>or inadequate testing (I absolutely agree there are labs that are not
>>>>using
>>>>the right tests out there; but I think that's a second order issue).
>>>>There
>>>>have been, and continue to be, many reports of not-compliant parts
>>>>shipping
>>>>as, being stocked as, or being used as compliant parts.
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Timothy McGrady [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:16 AM
>>>>To: (Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum); Mike Kirschner
>>>>Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for that link, Mike.
>>>>
>>>>When an enforcement authority finally does make the decision to go ahead
>>>>with a prosecution, they better make sure they've done their homework.
>>>>There are very few standard methods for analysis of RoHS substances and
>>>>there are few reference materials with which to validate those methods.
>>>>That is not to say they cannot come up with a solid case - I'm saying
>>>>that
>>>>they should chose that case wisely and make sure they can support their
>>>>findings with solid, validated methodology. It will have to be a "no
>>>>brainer" - an obvious violation. But of course, the EU would prefer to
>>>>catch a high-profile company in non-compliance. And it is likely they
>>>>want
>>>>to catch a company originating in a developed nation such as Japan or
>>>>the
>>>>US - picking on a developing nation might not sit right with public
>>>>opinion.
>>>>That might not be so easy, given the amount of attention paid to RoHS by
>>>>the
>>>>big boys. None of them wants to be the next Sony, and they certainly do
>>>>not
>>>>want their company name or product name in the media.
>>>>
>>>>That being said, there has been a lot of testing done using methods that
>>>>are
>>>>inappropriate and can result in false negatives. So there's a chance
>>>>that
>>>>a
>>>>relatively big company placed faith in a lab or used inappropriate
>>>>methods
>>>>themselves to overcheck results from independent labs. Even so, there's
>>>>also a good chance that EU enforcement authorities will also use
>>>>inappropriate methods to determine non-compliance (or conversely,
>>>>compliance). The lack of properly developed standards hurts all
>>>>involved:
>>>>enforcement authorities and producers alike. That is why standards must
>>>>be
>>>>in place before technical legislation such as RoHS go into effect.
>>>>
>>>>The example I use to illustrate this problem concerns a government
>>>>developing a regulation stating that all children age 14 and under must
>>>>wear
>>>>a helmet while riding a bicycle. Let's say that no standards for
>>>>helmets
>>>>were developed prior to the regulation going into force. A kid is
>>>>observed
>>>>riding a bicycle wearing a baseball cap. Is that kid in violation of
>>>>the
>>>>law? Not without a standard defining a helmet and laying out the
>>>>technical
>>>>requirements necessary to protect the head in case of an accident. Now
>>>>let's say the givernment developed extensive requirements for the helmet
>>>>and
>>>>a standards development body developed a standard for such helmets. The
>>>>resulting helmet would protect the head in every case, but it would cost
>>>>$2000. Would it be fair to expect a poor child riding a cheap bike to
>>>>wear
>>>>a $2000 helmet? Again, the answer is no. But if the law went into
>>>>effect,
>>>>there would likely be plenty of violations to go around. Fakes of
>>>>standard
>>>>helmets would quickly become available. In that case, the government
>>>>should
>>>>have taken their requirements to the standard developers and experts and
>>>>get
>>>>their feedback before putting the law on the books. If the law was too
>>>>costly to implement, the regulation would have to be altered. In either
>>>>case, it is necessary to have standards developed prior to the
>>>>regulation
>>>>going into force.
>>>>
>>>>That is why the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade
>>>>Agreement (TBT) is so important. Here is a quote from the TBT:
>>>>
>>>>"
>>>>With respect to their central government bodies:
>>>>
>>>>2.1 Members shall ensure that in respect of technical regulations,
>>>>products
>>>>imported from the territory of any Member shall be accorded treatment no
>>>>less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin
>>>>and
>>>>to like products originating in any other country.
>>>>
>>>>2.2 Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not prepared,
>>>>adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating
>>>>unnecessary
>>>>obstacles to international trade. For this purpose, technical
>>>>regulations
>>>>shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a
>>>>legitimate
>>>>objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create. Such
>>>>legitimate objectives are, inter alia: national security requirements;
>>>>the
>>>>prevention of deceptive practices; protection of human health or safety,
>>>>animal or plant life or health, or the environment. In assessing such
>>>>risks,
>>>>relevant elements of consideration are, inter alia: available scientific
>>>>and
>>>>technical information, related processing technology or intended
>>>>end-uses
>>>>of
>>>>products.
>>>>
>>>>2.3 Technical regulations shall not be maintained if the
>>>>circumstances or
>>>>objectives giving rise to their adoption no longer exist or if the
>>>>changed
>>>>circumstances or objectives can be addressed in a less trade-restrictive
>>>>manner.
>>>>
>>>>2.4 Where technical regulations are required and relevant international
>>>>standards exist or their completion is imminent, Members shall use them,
>>>>or
>>>>the relevant parts of them, as a basis for their technical regulations
>>>>except when such international standards or relevant parts would be an
>>>>ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the legitimate
>>>>objectives pursued, for instance because of fundamental climatic or
>>>>geographical factors or fundamental technological problems.
>>>>
>>>>2.5 A Member preparing, adopting or applying a technical regulation
>>>>which
>>>>may have a significant effect on trade of other Members shall, upon the
>>>>request of another Member, explain the justification for that technical
>>>>regulation in terms of the provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4. Whenever a
>>>>technical regulation is prepared, adopted or applied for one of the
>>>>legitimate objectives explicitly mentioned in paragraph 2, and is in
>>>>accordance with relevant international standards, it shall be rebuttably
>>>>presumed not to create an unnecessary obstacle to international trade.
>>>>
>>>>2.6 With a view to harmonizing technical regulations on as wide a basis
>>>>as
>>>>possible, Members shall play a full part, within the limits of their
>>>>resources, in the preparation by appropriate international standardizing
>>>>bodies of international standards for products for which they either
>>>>have
>>>>adopted, or expect to adopt, technical regulations.
>>>>
>>>>2.7 Members shall give positive consideration to accepting as equivalent
>>>>technical regulations of other Members, even if these regulations differ
>>>>from their own, provided they are satisfied that these regulations
>>>>adequately fulfil the objectives of their own regulations.
>>>>
>>>>2.8 Wherever appropriate, Members shall specify technical regulations
>>>>based
>>>>on product requirements in terms of performance rather than design or
>>>>descriptive characteristics.
>>>>
>>>>2.9 Whenever a relevant international standard does not exist or the
>>>>technical content of a proposed technical regulation is not in
>>>>accordance
>>>>with the technical content of relevant international standards, and if
>>>>the
>>>>technical regulation may have a significant effect on trade of other
>>>>Members, Members shall:
>>>>
>>>> 2.9.1 publish a notice in a publication at an early appropriate stage,
>>>>in
>>>>such a manner as to enable interested parties in other Members to become
>>>>acquainted with it, that they propose to introduce a particular
>>>>technical
>>>>regulation;
>>>>
>>>> 2.9.2 notify other Members through the Secretariat of the products
>>>>to be
>>>>covered by the proposed technical regulation, together with a brief
>>>>indication of its objective and rationale. Such notifications shall take
>>>>place at an early appropriate stage, when amendments can still be
>>>>introduced
>>>>and comments taken into account;
>>>>
>>>> 2.9.3 upon request, provide to other Members particulars or copies of
>>>>the
>>>>proposed technical regulation and, whenever possible, identify the parts
>>>>which in substance deviate from relevant international standards;
>>>>
>>>> 2.9.4 without discrimination, allow reasonable time for other
>>>>Members to
>>>>make comments in writing, discuss these comments upon request, and take
>>>>these written comments and the results of these discussions into
>>>>account.
>>>>
>>>>2.10 Subject to the provisions in the lead-in to paragraph 9, where
>>>>urgent
>>>>problems of safety, health, environmental protection or national
>>>>security
>>>>arise or threaten to arise for a Member, that Member may omit such of
>>>>the
>>>>steps enumerated in paragraph 9 as it finds necessary, provided that the
>>>>Member, upon adoption of a technical regulation, shall:
>>>>
>>>> 2.10.1 notify immediately other Members through the Secretariat of the
>>>>particular technical regulation and the products covered, with a brief
>>>>indication of the objective and the rationale of the technical
>>>>regulation,
>>>>including the nature of the urgent problems;
>>>>
>>>> 2.10.2 upon request, provide other Members with copies of the technical
>>>>regulation;
>>>>
>>>> 2.10.3 without discrimination, allow other Members to present their
>>>>comments in writing, discuss these comments upon request, and take these
>>>>written comments and the results of these discussions into account.
>>>>
>>>>2.11 Members shall ensure that all technical regulations which have been
>>>>adopted are published promptly or otherwise made available in such a
>>>>manner
>>>>as to enable interested parties in other Members to become acquainted
>>>>with
>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>2.12 Except in those urgent circumstances referred to in paragraph 10,
>>>>Members shall allow a reasonable interval between the publication of
>>>>technical regulations and their entry into force in order to allow time
>>>>for
>>>>producers in exporting Members, and particularly in developing country
>>>>Members, to adapt their products or methods of production to the
>>>>requirements of the importing Member."
>>>>
>>>>The EU has always argued that because their regulations such as RoHS are
>>>>for
>>>>protection of human health and the environment and because they impact
>>>>their
>>>>companies in the same way as they impact importing companies, there
>>>>cannot
>>>>be a trade barrier (see paragraphs 2 and 5 above). But paragraph 2 can
>>>>be
>>>>argued in the case of RoHS. I contend (as I think many of you do) that
>>>>RoHS
>>>>is much more trade restrictive than necessary, taking into account the
>>>>actual impact the directive will have on human health and the
>>>>environment.
>>>>Had the proper standards been in place, billions of dollars would have
>>>>been
>>>>saved. If RoHS had not been implemented or had been delayed, I doubt
>>>>many
>>>>lives would be negatively impacted, if any at all. In fact, the
>>>>argument
>>>>can be made that RoHS can negatively impact human health, because there
>>>>is
>>>>high probability that a safety related part or system will fail due to
>>>>the
>>>>wholesale redesign of products and materials.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tim McGrady
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Mike Kirschner" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:05 AM
>>>>Subject: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rob Spiegel spoke, at our behest, to Steve Andrews to get a clear
>>>>>response
>>>>>on why we haven't seen any visible cases of non-compliance in the EU
>>>>>yet.
>>>>>He
>>>>>has more credibility on this topic than just about anyone, even DCA ;o)
>>>>>
>>>>>You can read his story, entitled "EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations
>>>>>Yet",
>>>>>at
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6387098.html
>>>>>
>>>>>So the bottom line is that they're trying to find that first case to go
>>>>>public with.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike Kirschner
>>>>>Design Chain Associates, LLC
>>>>>
>>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Leadfee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>>>>>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text
>>>>>in
>>>>>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>>>>>To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
>>>>>send:
>>>>>SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>>>>>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>>>>>Please visit IPC web site
>>>>>http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>>>>>for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask]
>>>>>or
>>>>>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>---Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>>>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>>>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>>>To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
>>>SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>>>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>>>Please visit IPC web site
>>>http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>>>for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
>>>[log in to unmask] or
>>>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>---
>>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
>>>
>>>Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>>>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>>>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>>>To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
>>>SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>>>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>>>Please visit IPC web site
>>>http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>>>for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
>>>[log in to unmask] or
>>>847-615-7100 ext.2815
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
>>Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>>To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>>the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>>To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
>>send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>>Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>>Please visit IPC web site
>>http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
>>information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100
>>ext.2815
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
