FAQ
Questions and answers
Ten questions, ten answers. Brief, verifiable and without dramatisation.
Were standards violated?
As a rule, no — the tests were passed. That is precisely the finding: formal conformity and the actual protection objective come apart. The load-bearing charge is always that the scope of attestation exceeds the scope of measurement, not that a test requirement was breached.
Does that make certified appliances unsafe?
The finding says nothing about any individual appliance. What is asserted is not that these appliances are demonstrably unsafe; what is asserted is that the decisive property was not measured under the standard route of proof. Whether a particular appliance behaves favourably or unfavourably in a fire depends on its design and choice of materials. This does not mean that every appliance is dangerous; it means that the decisive property is not measured under the standard route of proof.
Are the certificates wrong?
No. The test report correctly attests that the specimen did not ignite at the selected temperature. What is contested is not its accuracy but the reach of the statement attached to it. The finding concerns the architecture of the proof, not the integrity of the testing work.
But the standard is the recognised state of the art.
The presumption of conformity reaches only as far as the standard actually covers the essential safety requirement. Where a standard falls short of the state of science and technology, invoking compliance with it is not enough. Union law provides a defined procedure for precisely this case: the formal objection under Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012.
Why has no one noticed this for so long?
The verification system is built as a ring of references: the appliance standard refers to the test standard for the test, the test standard refers to its users for its limits, and each party may assume that the overall question has been examined elsewhere. Within such a ring, each individual party is formally correct. In addition, the usual fire cause investigation ends with the ignition source and never asks about the spread of fire at all.
What does Project 550 call for?
Four points. First, deletion of the cross-reference under which a passed 550 °C test also counts as proof of resistance to the spread of fire. Second, restriction of the reference in the Official Journal under Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 until a procedure exists that measures this property. Third, direct proof through the risk analysis during the interim period. Fourth, a revision with a uniform standard test temperature and a quantified de-minimis exception.
Under what conditions would the thesis be refuted?
The examination states its own conditions of refutation. It would be refuted in particular by evidence that the plastics commonly used in appliances regularly ignite and self-extinguish at 550 °C; by a documented validation of the test temperatures; or by evidence that the derivation of the test severity is regularly documented in the technical files. The work provides the test programme for each of these questions.
Who is behind the project?
Project 550 is the work of Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Axel Opp, a publicly appointed and sworn expert for electrical and electronic installations and appliances, appointed by the Ministry of Justice of Luxembourg. He has worked for courts and insurers since 1998; together with his team he has assessed more than 50,000 damage cases (own account). The focus is on damage analysis and fire cause investigation as well as pursuing and defending recourse claims. The findings rest on more than one hundred material tests from over thirty appliances carried out specifically for this project.
Can I report my own damage case?
Yes, via the reporting page. Beforehand, secure the appliance and its remains, dispose of nothing and document everything photographically. The report is voluntary, data-minimising and revocable at any time. It is not an instruction to prepare an expert opinion and not legal advice; an expert assessment of an individual case is commissioned separately.
Where do the figures come from?
Every figure on this website carries its label. The fire frequency is an extrapolation based on institutionally published statistics and is expressly set as a lower bound. The damage volume is a model calculation with disclosed assumptions, not a statistic; it rests on an average of around €10,000 per fire claim reported by the insurance industry. The measured values come from our own measurement series, whose raw data and test set-up are disclosed.