Standards

What is functional safety?

2 min readMati Melchior
What is functional safety?

Functional safety is the part of overall safety that depends on the correct functioning of electrical, electronic, and programmable electronic safety-related systems. That's the formal definition from IEC 61508-4:2010, section 3.1.11, and every word in it matters.

The key phrase is "correct functioning." Functional safety isn't about whether the machine does its job — it's about whether the safety system does its job. These are different questions with different engineering implications.

A machine can work perfectly and still be unsafe if the safety system protecting it has a latent fault. A conveyor can run at the correct speed, a robot arm can follow the correct path, a motor can deliver the correct torque — and if the emergency stop circuit has a hidden failure, the machine is not functionally safe.

The question functional safety asks is: when something fails — a sensor, a processor, a communication link, a power supply, a software function — does the system reach a safe state? A safe state is a condition where the risk is eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level. For a robot arm, the safe state might be "motors de-energized." For an autonomous vehicle, it might be "vehicle stopped with hazard lights active." For a nuclear reactor, it might be "control rods inserted."

The entire discipline of functional safety engineering — the standards (IEC 61508, ISO 13849, IEC 62061), the certification processes (TÜV, UL, Pilz), the architectural patterns (dual-channel, voting, diagnostic coverage) — exists to make the answer to that question as reliable as possible. Safety Integrity Levels (SIL 1 through SIL 4) quantify how reliable: the higher the SIL, the lower the probability that the safety system will fail to perform its function when demanded.

For anyone building Physical AI systems, this is the starting concept. Every conversation about robot safety certification, about EU Machinery Regulation compliance, about SIL levels and Performance Levels, begins here. If you're building robots and this term is unfamiliar — this is where to start.

Share

Physical AI Safety Dispatch

Monthly analysis. No spam. One exclusive insight per issue.

One issue per month. Unsubscribe in one click from any email. Privacy policy.

Regulation

What five weeks of counting found

104 days separate 8 October 2026 from 20 January 2027, when Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 will apply as a cut-off with no transition period. Thirty-nine notified bodies held a current notification on 13 September 2026, against one hundred and forty-four under the Directive it replaces. No harmonised standard has yet been cited under the Regulation, the application guide is expected in the fourth quarter of 2026, no readiness figure has been published, and none of the seven certification bodies checked publishes how long the work takes. The deadline is measured to the day. Almost nothing behind it is.

Read →

Regulation

You have 127 days. Nobody publishes how long this takes.

127 days separate 15 September 2026 from 20 January 2027, when Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 will apply. Seven certification bodies were checked for a published duration benchmark and not one publishes it, so what follows is what is documented instead: the first assessor notified on 8 September 2024, roughly twenty-eight months before the Regulation applies, no harmonised standard yet cited under the Regulation, and seven trade associations on record that machinery was the only sector left out of the Omnibus IV transition period.

Read →

We use cookies

This site uses essential cookies to function and, with your consent, analytics cookies (Google Analytics) to understand how the site is used. Learn more.