Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
DrQuine
User Rank
CEO
re: Panel: Safety standard could disrupt MEMS in autos
DrQuine   3/25/2012 2:11:47 AM
NO RATINGS
The local drug store is selling electronic breathalyzers for $10 (with an included parking meter timer). I guess it is hard to argue that price is a barrier.

Peter Clarke
User Rank
Blogger
re: Panel: Safety standard could disrupt MEMS in autos
Peter Clarke   3/23/2012 5:48:46 PM
NO RATINGS
Thanks for the comment Marc...and for a good panel discussion in Zurich.

Marc.OSAJDA
User Rank
Rookie
re: Panel: Safety standard could disrupt MEMS in autos
Marc.OSAJDA   3/23/2012 1:59:19 PM
NO RATINGS
Hi Peter, I think that the key point here is for the Tier1 to define a safety architecture at the system level. The choice of the safety architecture will determine to what ASIL level the silicon devices (including sensors) will have to be designed. The mistake in my opinion is to ask ASIL D for everything upfront. Using ASIL D components in an application does not guarantee that the application will be ASIL D. Freescale is specifically adressing functional safety through its Safe Assure program in order to offer silicon solutions that will fit our customer needs. Have a nice week end, Marc Osajda, Freescale

Peter Clarke
User Rank
Blogger
re: Panel: Safety standard could disrupt MEMS in autos
Peter Clarke   3/23/2012 1:32:25 PM
NO RATINGS
That was kinda the Freescale guy's initial position. However, the Continental executive made his point: there's work to be done and the Tier-1's expect their suppliers to do as much of it as possible. The Conti guy seemed to indicate that MEMS components (and general ICs and software as well as far as I can tell) have to documented DURING DESIGN for the purposes of ISO 26262. Obviously, that has not been done for most devices and LOCs currently deployed.

docdivakar
User Rank
Manager
re: Panel: Safety standard could disrupt MEMS in autos
docdivakar   3/23/2012 12:44:16 AM
NO RATINGS
Hi Peter, thanks for the follow up. It looks like the ISO 26262 is an adaptation of IEC-61508. I haven't read the ISO document but it would seem that it may introduce some additional requirements specification on the 'system' but not at the component level. So the burden is more on the adopters of MEMS in vehicles than on the MEMS vendors. I doubt if design procedures at component-level change significantly from what they are now; component vendors may need to provide additional doc's as @Dave.Dykstra also point out below. MP Divakar

Dave.Dykstra
User Rank
Rookie
re: Panel: Safety standard could disrupt MEMS in autos
Dave.Dykstra   3/23/2012 12:10:06 AM
NO RATINGS
Quite an interesting story. Of course, the manufacturers will have some issues at first until they get things lined up well to be able to readily provide the required documentation. The adoption here is probably not radically different than the adoption of quality standards and the added requirements can probably be met by an expansion of those methods to produce the proper audit trail. And, of course, this will ultimately have an impact on parts delivery schedule and price, but much of this is probably long overdue.

Peter Clarke
User Rank
Blogger
re: Panel: Safety standard could disrupt MEMS in autos
Peter Clarke   3/22/2012 8:15:17 PM
NO RATINGS
I am not an expert on ISO/TS 16949 (2009) or ISO 26262 but from what I can see the former is a quality management standard that does not specifically address functional safety. Would it be possible to be ISO 16949 compliant and produce an unsafe vehicle? The point of ISO 26262, as fas I can see, is to prevent, as far as is possible/feasible, the design/manufacture of an unsafe vehicle or a vehicle that could become unsafe AND should there be a failure that produces a dangerous situation to have an audit trail that means the vehicle maker and/or an upstream supplier can be held accountable.

docdivakar
User Rank
Manager
re: Panel: Safety standard could disrupt MEMS in autos
docdivakar   3/22/2012 7:54:49 PM
NO RATINGS
@Peter Clarke: it seems like some of the regulating authorities are making things harder for us engineers. On one end, (as you mention, the legal requirement in France to carry a breathalyzer in the car, mandatory tire pressure monitoring systems, etc), there are must-comply requirements while the other, like ISO26262, are putting additional design requirements. There are existing quality requirements that ensure products designed are up to the standard. What is deficient in ISO/TS 16949 (2009) that ISO26262 aims to fill? MP Divakar



EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Aging Brass: Cow Poop vs. Horse Doo-Doo
Max Maxfield
41 comments
As you may recall, one of the things I want to do with the brass panels I'm using in my Inamorata Prognostication Engine is to make them look really old. Since everything is being mounted ...

EDN Staff

11 Summer Vacation Spots for Engineers
EDN Staff
18 comments
This collection of places from technology history, museums, and modern marvels is a roadmap for an engineering adventure that will take you around the world. Here are just a few spots ...

Glen Chenier

Engineers Solve Analog/Digital Problem, Invent Creative Expletives
Glen Chenier
14 comments
- An analog engineer and a digital engineer join forces, use their respective skills, and pull a few bunnies out of a hat to troubleshoot a system with which they are completely ...

Larry Desjardin

Engineers Should Study Finance: 5 Reasons Why
Larry Desjardin
45 comments
I'm a big proponent of engineers learning financial basics. Why? Because engineers are making decisions all the time, in multiple ways. Having a good financial understanding guides these ...

Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)