The Secretary introduced the subject by recalling that, in the chain of events linked to an accident, the AECS regulation should only focus on what is relevant for AECS approval. The 1st event could be e.g. the activation of the airbags, but this would generate other questions like e.g. which acceleration sensor signal should be the AECS triggering signal, taking into account that their signals can be computerized before controlling the airbags. The starting point of the regulation could also be the time of reception of a “triggering logic signal” by the AECS. In that case, the manufacturer should decide when and how this signal is generated, and the text of the regulation should define the meaning of “reception of the triggering signal by the AECS”.
Russia was keen to introduce a clear definition of an accident, when it is needed to trigger E-call. In addition, the expert from Russia pointed out the need for requirements that the system survives the crash, and as a consequence some part of crash simulation would be needed in the regulation.
OICA was keen that the regulation does not rely only on airbag inflation because the provisions should not be design-restrictive. The European Commission and Russia supported this OICA position.
Russia said that there is a need for a high-level definition of when the AECS should activate. OICA pointed out that the airbag is not mandatory in any Contracting Party and cannot be referred to in the regulation. OICA suggested referring to the conditions of UN R94 (frontal collision – representative of most severe frontal crashes) and UN R95 (lateral collision).
Conclusion: