Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation

NewsW wrote:

BenK wrote:
Wonder if the defense folks adhere to civilian EPA/SMOG mandated controls?

I know the stuff I designed for the military had very different specifications
and often just tossed out EPA/UL/CSA/FCC/etc regulatory specifications that I
had to design to for civilian applications (my industrial controls era)

Also know that 'some' military stuff had to adhere to some regulatory agencies
and all of that was over seas (my computer era)

AFAIK, DoD can ignore a lot of civilian regs, but they do try... mil equipment is long lived, that is whey the engines have to stay in production.

The physical look of the VT 365 6.0 for the defense market is interesting... Massive EGR cooler, etc.

COTS is huge and wonder if that EGR system is just a come along with
their COTS model?

I know for sure that my computer systems were specifically excluded from
regulator agencies...till my country manager for France got called
that the GM (my boss) responsible for that system (black badge) in that medical
facility was going to be placed on the 'arrest and jail' listing at
the border entry points.

This is USA military stuff in a USA facility in France. Really an
outpost inside of a French building where 'we' took over a whole
floor.

Don't know how far up the management chain, but it was high for the
label DB folks to make custom labels with the right serial numbers
and then fly a guy over there to change out the labels to appease.
Very serious for a self certifying label DB, as the regulatory agencies
'trusted' us and to screw up only one, would have had our self certifying
removed to cost the corporation 100's of millions of bucks

Also, wonder if the software is easily changed to NOT look for an EGR
and then the reliability positioning from the supplier. I know my
service rep would have done a dance on my forehead for even trying to
manipulate the MTBF number/position.