Also, didn't the 737max pass certifications?
(I'm on the fence about this; personally I think there need to be far more small company / small production run exemptions from these requirements, but on the other hand I don't want a loophole for recklessly dangerous products)
On the other side: if you forget ventilation in the cabinet, the certified PC might burn... so packaging CE certified components doesn't mean that the whole is risk-free
Yes. This is a significant difference from the US, where FCC compliance testing for modules is much more reasonable.
The US also appears to contract out basic electrical safety to the insurance industry (Underwriter's Laboratories).
Governments today generally don't operate test laboratories, standards organizations, or certification bodies. DIN, ISO, IEC, BSI etc are not government organizations.
You're right, though, that there's more history of insurance industry involvement in developing safety standards and testing in the US.
Not to be confused with the Chinese Export marking: https://www.kimuagroup.com/news/differences-between-ce-and-c...
It doesn't mean that nobody fraudulently puts those markings on devices without a testing certificate backing it. However anybody who puts CE mark on a product without complying is risking being punished by EU member states. As an importer and distributer of such goods you'll be punished as well. CE certification is indeed self disclosed but it doesn't mean that you would get away with noncompliance.
Source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-6-2007-5938-...
The "UKCA" one, on the other hand, is real but tragic.
Ditto Dieselgate.
Doesn't negate the need for testing. Rather, it shows the need for effective oversight.
