Differences

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

--- articles:auditing_7.1.5 [2023/07/20 20:57] – [Scenarios] rrandall
+++ articles:auditing_7.1.5 [2024/07/09 08:54] (current) – [6 - Using a Precision Micrometer to calibrate Gage Blocks] rrandall
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 (1) Is this a nonconformity? And if so, (2) is it a minor or a major nonconformity?
-__Answer:__ While this would appear to be a clear-cut nonconformity, it is not. This condition requires more information.
+__Answer:__ It depends.
-==== Is this a nonconformity? ====
+The auditor should ask whether the company has a "Calibration Management System" (CMS), or equivalent, procedure. \\
+If the answer is yes, then the auditor should review the CMS procedure because many companies provide themselves an //automatic// extension to the calibration interval/cycle/period (e.g., 30 days); or a conditional calibration due-date extension based upon management approval (to accept the increased risk). There are many good reasons why a company may choose to extend a calibration interval/cycle/period. However, the reason is typically to complete existing work in progress—accepting slightly greater risk in exchange for ensuring on-time completion/delivery of the product/service, or completion of a Project. This is perfectly acceptable.
+I've seen CMS procedures that state: "//Calibration is due during the month identified on the calibration status label, without regard for the specific day identified.//" or "//Calibration is due within 45 days past the date identified on the calibration status label.//" This certainly satisfies the requirement in ISO 9001/AS9100, sec. 7.1.5.2a relating to specifying an "interval".
+{{ :articles:calibration-frequency-factors-768x1920.jpeg?direct&350|}}
 The auditor should understand and recognize that a measuring instrument does not //magically// go "Out of Tolerance" on a certain date. The calibration interval (cycle) is merely a "risk control" to mitigate:
-  - the likelihood of an instrument drifting out of tolerance without the user(s) knowledge, and
+  - the likelihood of an instrument drifting out of tolerance during the calibration period, and
   - the impact/significance that an "Out-of-Tolerance" condition could have resulted in the shipment of nonconforming product(s) due to errors in measurements.
-{{ :articles:calibration-frequency-factors-768x1920.jpeg?direct&350|}}
 There are many factors that can contribute toward an instrument drifting out of tolerance, which include, but are not limited to:
   * Wear (due to frequent use—which is most common for dimensional measurement devices)
@@ Line 60: / Line 64: @@
   * Natural instrument degradation over time (e.g., aging of electronic components)
-With this understanding, the auditor should ask whether the company has a "Calibration Management System" (CMS) procedure. \\
-If the answer is yes, then the auditor should review the CMS procedure because many companies provide themselves an //automatic// extension to the calibration interval/cycle (e.g., 30 days); or a conditional calibration due-date extension based upon management approval (to accept the increased risk). There are many good reasons why a company may choose to extend a calibration interval/cycle. However, the reason is typically to complete existing work in progress—accepting slightly greater risk in exchange for ensuring on-time completion/delivery of the product/service, or completion of a Project. This is perfectly acceptable.
-I've seen CMS procedures that state: "//Calibration is due during the month identified on the calibration status label, without regard for the specific day identified.//" and "//Calibration is due within 45 days past the date identified on the calibration status label.//" This certainly satisfies the requirement in ISO 9001/AS9100, sec. 7.1.5.2a relating to specifying an "interval".
-<WRAP clear></WRAP>
 <WRAP center round info 80%>
 While there is NO requirement in ISO 9001 / AS9100 to have a documented "Calibration Management System" (CMS), ISO 9001 / AS 9100, sec. 7.1.5.1 states: \\
@@ Line 211: / Line 211: @@
 ===== 6 - Using a Precision Micrometer to calibrate Gage Blocks =====
-__Situation__ Similar to the above scenario, but at a different company, you discover that the company is using a [[https://www.starrett.com/metrology/product-detail/W733.1XFL-1#Specifications|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" (50 μin.). 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").
+__Situation__ Similar to the above scenario, but at a different company, you discover that the company is using a [[https://www.starrett.com/details?cat-no=W733.1XFL-1|Starrett W733.1XFL-1 Wireless Electronic Micrometer]] & [[https://www.starrett.com/details?cat-no=W733.1XFLZ-2|Starrett W733.1XFLZ-2 Wireless Electronic Micrometer]] a 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" (50 μin.). 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").
 <WRAP center round info 80%>