Test & measurement T CTF Stage 3
This third alternative is of particular use to those manufacturers with an established safety test laboratory process and expert staff of their own. The same stage 2 requirements apply, but witnessing is only carried out on selected parts of each approved new test programme. The manufacturer must also carry out the testing in the presence of a third-party laboratory.
While this type of approach requires some third-party oversight, it does allow the manufacturer to schedule tests at their own convenience and removes any imposition upon the working culture of the
26
raditionally safety testing has been done at an offsite test house. However, there is an alternative, and equally
comprehensive, approach that manufacturers may want to consider. This
is to achieve a test report or product certificate from an independent third-party, such as a National Certification Body, CB Test Laboratory (CBTL), or Local Technical Representative (LTR).
This approach is referred to as Customers Testing Facilities (CTF). It is particularly beneficial if equipment is expensive or too large to ship offsite; requires a specialist test set up and support equipment, or if the product is regularly updated or many variants are introduced.
THERE ARE FOUR CTF STAGES: CTF Stage 1
This is one of the most popular alternative approaches to lab-based safety testing. It is a low maintenance approach from the manufacturer’s perspective as all they have to do is provide a work area for the third- party test engineer, who will provide all the required calibrated test equipment. Having the test engineer on site speeds up test times, as face-to-face interaction between engineer and client means that any non-compliances discovered during testing can be resolved more quickly.
CTF Stage 2 Tests are performed by the manufacturer, with their own test equipment, in their own laboratory, However, it does necessitate witnessing the entirety of all test programmes by a third-party test engineer. This approach significantly reduces test times as the manufacturer’s staff doing the testing have a greater understanding of the product and can redress any test issues more quickly than a third-party expert could. However, their laboratory must still be assessed against certain key criteria.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO PRODUCT SAFETY
TESTING By Matt Emery, Chief Engineer at TÜV SÜD
October 2024 Instrumentation Monthly
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96
