Can I use my already calibrated in house measurung equipment to "calibrate" e.g.gauges and still maintain my "we do not have a lab" status?

Look at the TS definitions page...Dimensional Lab

We had to develop a dimensional lab scope and add it to our test lab scope.
Not a big deal, and doesn't take long either.

The dilema you run into is traceability. If your external calibration provider is UKAS accredited then the internal cal may be OK.....if you are using a non-accredited lab then you need to evaluate them.....

As for your lab specifically, it is good for you to seek accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 through UKAS.

Hope this helps.

Hershal

RangoTango,
You have an Internal Laboratory as far as TS and your registar are concerned. I just got hit with a finding on this one.

Information and advice on how to document your Internal Lab can be found in this thread (Posts 10-25) on maintaining a TS Registration (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=13747).

I'm in agreement with Ralph and Icy; I looked at it as just so much unnecessary nonsense too, but in the end created some quick and easy window dressing to satisfy the standard/auditor. There aren't that many of those silly requirements left, but where they are, just slap a (non-time consuming) patch over it and be done with it. :agree1:

I'm in agreement with Ralph and Icy; I looked at it as just so much unnecessary nonsense too, but in the end created some quick and easy window dressing to satisfy the standard/auditor. There aren't that many of those silly requirements left, but where they are, just slap a (non-time consuming) patch over it and be done with it. :agree1:

It's even worse than having to write up some window dressing procedures. It's a total mockery of calibration systems.

I can go ahead and calibrate anything we have in my in house lab, as long as the TS auditor gives me a TS certificate (which includes my "cal lab".

If I send the device outside I have to send it to a 17025 qualified lab.

The TS audits are typically pretty light weight when it comes to calibration, uncertainty, traceability, etc.

Also the TS audit cycle looks at calibration very infrequently, maybe as little as once per 3 year cycle.

So it's in my "interest" to have an internal TS cal lab with light weight procedures. Lots of money and effort saved until (if) I get caught. How long could I get away with it? 4.5 years so far!

IMHO calibration should be dropped from ISO as it moves towards a business system and away from QC. Doc control as well. They just don't even show up as costs when compared to contract review, management, and design....we're working the wrong end of the Pareto!

or simply verifying the gauges? If you're calibrating, in other words using the whole calibration chain of traceability and so forth, then my belief is you have a lab (controlled access, environmental controls etc. etc.) and ISO 17025 would be good to use as some guidance (if not to necessarily go the whole hog and become accredited).:yes:

But, as may be the case, your folks are simply using these calibrated 'standards' to verify the other equipment, then I'm not sure you need to do the 'lab. thing'.:mg: :nope:

So, any more info. on what your people are doing?

Andy

It's even worse than having to write up some window dressing procedures. It's a total mockery of calibration systems.

I can go ahead and calibrate anything we have in my in house lab, as long as the TS auditor gives me a TS certificate (which includes my "cal lab".

If I send the device outside I have to send it to a 17025 qualified lab.

The TS audits are typically pretty light weight when it comes to calibration, uncertainty, traceability, etc.

Also the TS audit cycle looks at calibration very infrequently, maybe as little as once per 3 year cycle.

So it's in my "interest" to have an internal TS cal lab with light weight procedures. Lots of money and effort saved until (if) I get caught. How long could I get away with it? 4.5 years so far!

IMHO calibration should be dropped from ISO as it moves towards a business system and away from QC. Doc control as well. They just don't even show up as costs when compared to contract review, management, and design....we're working the wrong end of the Pareto!

Actually, even though I know I will hear long and loud.....

Calibration is best left to Metrology professionals in (hopefully) accredited labs.

The concept is no different than having a Quality professional running the QA group or having a machinist running the CNC.

Hershal

Actually, I agree with you Hershal. If it's not our core business, leave it to those whose it is. The only things we "calibrate" in house are hand devices (mics, calipers, bore gages, etc.). Everything else goes to an accredited lab.

And Caster, I'm not saying we should not have calibration controls at all; just not the whole "scope" business. It sounds rather grandiose to call 30 hand devices in a die shop an "internal laboratory facility". But a company does need to control its measurement equipment. Just as it does need Document Control. Failures in both of those areas can be extremely expensive; on a par with design controls and contract review.

The point is, let the elaborateness of a system fit the depth of its content.

Facility for inspection, test, or calibration that may include, but is not limited to chemical, metallurgical, dimensional physical, electric or reliability testing. Controlled document containing
 Specific tests, evaluations and calibrations that a laboratory is qualified to perform
 List of the equipment which it uses to perform the above, and
 List of methods and standards to which it performs the above.
An organization’s internal laboratory shall have a defined scope that includes its capability to perform the required inspection, test or calibration services. This laboratory scope shall be included in the quality management system documentation. The laboratory shall specify and implement, as a minimum, technical requirements for
 Adequacy of the laboratory procedures,
 Competency of the laboratory personnel,
 Testing of the product,
 Capability to perform these services correctly, traceable to the relevant process standards (such as ASTM, EN, etc.) and
 Review of the related records.
I don't think we need to debate whether you are calibrating, validating or otherwise checking an instrument. The TS definitions for Laboratory and Laboratory Scope cover any measurement you might care to make for any reason in your product realization process. You don't need A2LA certification to 17025 to establish traceability for your standards and document your "scope" even if you are just using a certified block to "verify" a dial caliper. If you test, inpsect, evaluate or calibrate, you must document your Internal Laboratory. Full stop.

Side note.....since the original post is from UK, then UKAS is the correct AB to refer to.....