Differences

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

--- articles:auditing_7.1.5 [2023/07/20 20:53] – [6 - Using a Precision Micrometer to calibrate Gage Blocks] rrandall
+++ articles:auditing_7.1.5 [2023/07/20 20:57] (current) – [Scenarios] rrandall
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 [[articles:auditing_7.1.5#using_a_precision_micrometer_to_calibrate_gage_blocks|Scenario #6:]] Similar to the above scenario, but at a different company, you discover that the company is using a Starrett W733.1XFL-1 Wireless Electronic Micrometer to calibrate their class AS-2 Gage Block set (stainless steel, rectangular 0.010" to 2"). While the Starrett W733.1XFL-1 Micrometer Calibration certificate contains minimal information, you notice that it has a digital display with a resolution of 0.00005". To verify that the Test Accuracy Ratio (T.A.R.) is sufficient, you see that the Gage Blocks Calibration Certificate indicates an accuracy of ±10 μin." (0.00001).
-[[articles:auditing_7.1.5#fitness_for_purpose_1|Scenario #7:]] [[ https://www.qclabels.com/Quality-Control-Labels/Limited-Calibration-Control-Stickers.aspx|{{  :articles:lpc440.jpeg?200}}]]You observed calipers being used throughout the production process, and observed that the majority of these calipers supported the “Step” dimensional measurement. Upon interviewing multiple operators, you learned that some use the “Step” feature while others do not. You took note that NONE of these calipers with a “Step” feature had a “Limited Calibration" status label… and you were told that the calipers are calibrated in-house. Upon examining the Calibration record, you noticed that the “Step” feature was not included in the calibration results. It appears that the company has not been calibrating the "Step" feature on calipers that support this dimensional measurement.
+[[articles:auditing_7.1.5#relocted_weighing_scale|Scenario #7:]] You observed a weighing scale with a calibration status label. Upon examining its associated Calibration Certificate, you notice that the certificate was issued to a different address than the location where the audit is being performed. Upon asking about this discrepancy, you're informed that the weighing scale was calibrated at a different location and shipped to the current location.
-[[articles:auditing_7.1.5#relocted_weighing_scale|Scenario #8:]] You observed a weighing scale with a calibration status label. Upon examining its associated Calibration Certificate, you notice that the certificate was issued to a different address than the location where the audit is being performed. Upon asking about this discrepancy, you're informed that the weighing scale was calibrated at a different location and shipped to the current location.
+[[articles:auditing_7.1.5#fitness_for_purpose_1|Scenario #8:]] [[ https://www.qclabels.com/Quality-Control-Labels/Limited-Calibration-Control-Stickers.aspx|{{  :articles:lpc440.jpeg?200}}]]You observed calipers being used throughout the production process, and observed that the majority of these calipers supported the “Step” dimensional measurement. Upon interviewing multiple operators, you learned that some use the “Step” feature while others do not. You took note that NONE of these calipers with a “Step” feature had a “Limited Calibration" status label… and you were told that the calipers are calibrated in-house. Upon examining the Calibration record, you noticed that the “Step” feature was not included in the calibration results. It appears that the company has not been calibrating the "Step" feature on calipers that support this dimensional measurement.
 [[articles:auditing_7.1.5#fitness_for_purpose_2_as9100_only|Scenario #9 (AS 9100 ONLY):]] You observed micrometers being used throughout the production process, and you were told that the micrometers are calibrated "in-house". Upon Reviewing the Calibration Method, you noticed that neither the “flatness" nor “parallelism” of the anvil with the spindle had been calibrated.
@@ Line 238: / Line 238: @@
   - mechanical and thermal conditions during transportation that likely altered the performance of the instrument? \\
-If the answer is no, and there is no other evidence to the contrary, this should be a Major nonconformance because we must assume that there is a high degree of probability that product quality (or quantity) has been affected. However, if the auditee has appropriate test weights (mass) providing an acceptable calibration accuracy ratio, and can verify that the weighing scale is in-tolerance during the audit, then this can be graded as a Minor Nonconformity.
+If the answer is no, and there is no other evidence to the contrary, this should be a Major nonconformance because we must assume that there is a high degree of probability that product quality (or quantity) has been affected. However, if the auditee has appropriate test weights (mass) providing an acceptable calibration accuracy ratio, and can verify that the weighing scale is in-tolerance during the audit, then this can be graded as a Minor Nonconformity (for not having a record of calibration AFTER the weighing scale was re-located).
 The basis for this nonconformity is found in [[https://www.euramet.org/Media/docs/Publications/calguides/I-CAL-GUI-018_Calibration_Guide_No._18_web.pdf|EURAMET Calibration Guide No. 18 (Version 4.0 (11/2015))]], page 5, which states: