|
|
Posted by Tony Morgan on 01/03/07 09:33
In message <vvtlp25rb30s6oufq551nmdcj7c0eeugt1@4ax.com>, JoeBloe
<joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes
>On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:04:09 +0000, Tony Morgan <Tony@rhylonline.com>
>Gave us:
>
>> No doubt you are both clued
>>up enough to see that here there's no mention of testing - so all that
>>is required is a declaration (in the "Technical File - held by the
>>manufacturer/importer) that the equipment/item been designed to conform
>>with the relevant directive(s).
>
>
> Yes, dipshit. However, when a non-conformance is found by a
>customer or other party, and is reported, you can bet your sweet ass
>that bloody england won't be allowing it past the docks once they get
>wind of it.
God, you are thick. If it's found by a customer then it's already past
the docks. I know the question is a little beyond you, but to whom does
the customer report it? BSI? DIN? Of course not - he returns it to his
supplier who passes it back up the supply-chain to the manufacturer - in
practice, depending on the unit cost it's likely to be written off and
re-supplied.
And another question....Is a customer likely to pay the not
inconsiderable cost of testing for conformity? If you suggest "yes" you
don't have a clue about the cost of conformity testing.
Have you ever been to Felixstowe (or any other container port) ?
No?.... It figures,,,,
Have you ever had something tested for conformity? Have you a clue how
much it costs? If you put your brain into gear you would figure out for
yourself that is the reason why actual testing is NOT required - simply
a declaration that the item is *designed* to conform.
Have a read through ISO9000/9001. That is the relevant conformity
standard - and you'll note that there is nothing about conformity
testing in there.
--
Tony Morgan
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|