Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
articles:as9100d_oe_requirements-2 [2020/01/22 20:19]
rrandall
articles:as9100d_oe_requirements-2 [2020/01/22 20:21] (current)
rrandall
Line 46: Line 46:
 <note tip>**# 2** \\ Because AS 9100D fails to adequately address "//​fitness for purpose//",​ knowledgable Aerospace companies such as Collins Aerospace (previously UTAS) & Pratt & Whitney identify a minimum "//​accuracy ratio//"​ for M&TE (as 4:1) in their [[https://​www.utc.com/​suppliers/​aerospace-supplier-quality-requirement-documents|United Technologies ASQR-01 (Rev. 11), sec. 5.4.1]].</​note>​ <note tip>**# 2** \\ Because AS 9100D fails to adequately address "//​fitness for purpose//",​ knowledgable Aerospace companies such as Collins Aerospace (previously UTAS) & Pratt & Whitney identify a minimum "//​accuracy ratio//"​ for M&TE (as 4:1) in their [[https://​www.utc.com/​suppliers/​aerospace-supplier-quality-requirement-documents|United Technologies ASQR-01 (Rev. 11), sec. 5.4.1]].</​note>​
  
-<note tip>**# 3** \\ 1. To begin clause 7.1.5.2 with the words "//​When measurement traceability is a requirement...//"​ seems odd because ALL M&TE should have metrological traceability. While it has been speculated that this requirement is intentionally vague so as to also encompass subjective "​measuring tools" (e.g., Visual Representations (photographs),​ Representative Samples, Customer Satisfaction Surveys), due to this ambiguity, most AS 9100 auditors simply interpret this as a requirement for "​calibration"​ (a.k.a. "​Metrological Confirmation"​) records. The bottom line is, if ISO / IAQG had wanted something different, they should have been more specific. \\ 2. For clause 7.1.5.2a to require metrological traceability to "to international or national measurement standards"​ indicates either ignorance on the part of ISO / IAQG concerning metrological traceability OR the influence of government members mandating the use of government-funded NMIs (National Metrology Institutes). In either case, this is an antiquated way in which to address metrological traceability. To gain a better understanding of metrological traceability,​ read "​[[articles:​nist_traceability|NIST Traceability Numbers - The Sasquatch of Metrology]]. \\ BTW, The clarification concerning metrological traceability includes the statement "//The organization may have regulatory requirements to have standards traceable to NAA.//"​ (which is possible where regulators do not understand the definition of "​metrological traceability"​ contained in [[https://​www.bipm.org/​utils/​common/​documents/​jcgm/​JCGM_200_2012.pdf|BIPM JCGM 200]]). The acronym "​NAA"​ is intended to be understood to mean [[https://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​National_aviation_authority|"​National Aviation Authority"​]]</​note>​+<note tip>**# 3** \\ 1. To begin clause 7.1.5.2 with the words "//​When measurement traceability is a requirement...//"​ seems odd because ALL M&TE should have metrological traceability. While it has been speculated that this requirement is intentionally vague so as to also encompass subjective "​measuring tools" (e.g., Visual Representations (photographs),​ Representative Samples, Customer Satisfaction Surveys), due to this ambiguity, most AS 9100 auditors simply interpret this as a requirement for "​calibration"​ (a.k.a. "​Metrological Confirmation"​) records. The bottom line is, if ISO / IAQG had wanted something different, they should have been more specific. \\ 2. For clause 7.1.5.2a to require metrological traceability to "to international or national measurement standards"​ indicates either ignorance on the part of ISO / IAQG concerning metrological traceability OR the influence of government members mandating the use of government-funded NMIs (National Metrology Institutes). In either case, this is an antiquated way in which to address metrological traceability. To gain a better understanding of metrological traceability,​ read "​[[articles:​nist_traceability|NIST Traceability Numbers - The Sasquatch of Metrology]]. \\ BTW, The clarification concerning metrological traceability includes the statement "//The organization may have regulatory requirements to have standards traceable to NAA.//"​ (which is possible where regulators do not understand the definition of "​metrological traceability"​ contained in [[https://​www.bipm.org/​utils/​common/​documents/​jcgm/​JCGM_200_2012.pdf|BIPM JCGM 200]]). The acronym "​NAA"​ is intended to be understood to mean [[https://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​National_aviation_authority|"​National Aviation Authority"​]].</​note>​
  
 <note tip>**# 4** \\ For guidance on addressing AS 9100, clause 7.2d, see the (non-binding) IAF  <note tip>**# 4** \\ For guidance on addressing AS 9100, clause 7.2d, see the (non-binding) IAF