I am fairly new to AS9100 and my company is getting certified. Can anyone tell me the difference between Calibrated and Inspected? We have calipers that have a certificate of inspection but I am wondering if there is some nuance to the vocabulary. I am faced with the decision to A: have one pair of calipers set aside for final QA or B: Use the "inspected" and get a master to back up the inspection caplipers.

Thanks,

Sam

I am fairly new to AS9100 and my company is getting certified. Can anyone tell me the difference between Calibrated and Inspected? We have calipers that have a certificate of inspection but I am wondering if there is some nuance to the vocabulary. I am faced with the decision to A: have one pair of calipers set aside for final QA or B: Use the "inspected" and get a master to back up the inspection caplipers.

Thanks,

Sam
Welcome to the Cove, Sam. :D

It's hard to tell from here just what your "certificate of inspection" means. Are you familiar with the general requirements for calibration? In order to qualify under the standard definition, the caliper would have to be checked (by a qualified person) across its entire measurement range against standards traceable to a national standard, measurement uncertainty would have to be calculated, etc. If what you have just says that the caliper has been inspected, it won't qualify as evidence of calibration.

Welcome to The Cove Same! :bigwave: To build on Jim's good post:

When doing calibrations on calipers I used to include an inspection element that did not fall under the calilbration definition. I looked for:

Physical damage,
smooth functioning of the slide,
tail piece securely fastened,
wear on the jaws...

stuff like that. Now certain types of inspection probems should be noticed in calibration, like bent tips on the caliper jaws causing an out-of-cal reading because only the tip of that bent over part is touching the gage block. But in a general sense the inspection was used to note the instrument's physical condition and usability.

"Condition and usability" criteria would be specific for each type of instrument: calipers, dial indicators, micrometers each have particular aspects that impact their usability. For example, a dial indicator with a needle tip that is bent would throw a slight uncertainty curve into its measurements--those tips need to be straight and the ball ends should be intact.

I hope this helps!

Sam,

Welcome, as Jim and Jennifer have given you very good details on the difference between Calibrated vs. Inspected. I would like to add my :2cents: on how we handled this issue. The company calibration, for ISO9001 and AS9100, procedure was set up for the Inspection of the hand tools such as Calipers and Micrometers. Stating the Inspection part, as note by Jennifer, and added a verification based on gage blocks traceable to the national standards, as noted by Jim, to be preformed by a qualified inspectors with a record of inspection findings and a Gage R&R comparison was done a random sampling and compared to the original R&R report.
Hope this will help you out.

First of all your quality system will need to meet all requirements of Clause 7.6 of AS9100. Terms are very important with both ISO 9001 and AS9100 as defined by ISO 9000:2005 because in specific words in standards have normative status as defined by ISO 9000.

Look at the definition of the terms associated with monitoring and measuring devices:

Calibration: The set of operation which establish, under specified conditions, the relationship between values indicated by a measuring instrument or measuring system, and the corresponding standard or known values derived from the standard. ANSI/NCSL Z540-1, 3.1

Inspection: Conformity evaluation by observation and judgment accompanied as appropriate by measurement, testing or gauging.” ISO 9000:20005.

Calibration certificate or reports: Document that presents calibration results and other information relevant to a calibration. ANSI/NCSL Z540-1, 3.2

The actual AS9100 standard in Clause 7.6 also uses the term "verification" (not inspection) which ISO 9000:2005, in 3.8.4, defines as “Confirmation though the provision of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled. What the standard is saying is that an organization may calibrate or verify its monitoring and measuring devices as long as its process meets the requirements of 7.6.

Related to your issue with the use of term “inspection” verses “calibration or verification” on the certifications. You will need to verify that the certifications conform to the requirements of clause 7.6 and contain objective evidence. Your auditor will be looking for traceability of calibration/verification/inspection standards to international or national measurement standards and all other appropriate requirements of the clause 7.6.

If the process conforms to the requirements of clause 7.6 there should not be a problem with a knowledgeable auditor and your certifications of inspection. Just for fun though call the organization that issued the certification and obtain there reason for using "inspection" instead of "verification or calibration" and be ready to explain it to the auditor should he (or she) asks.

Calibration determines the tolerances and accuracies of the unknown test instrument against another instrument with known tolerances and accuracies (usually traceable against a national or international standard).

Inspection involves examination of the unknown test instrument against an internal or external standard.

Id like to add an interesting twist to this topic. I have just recently reviewed the requirements for "Control of Monitoring and Measuring Devices" as outlined in the AS9100B Aerospace standard. It would seem to me that, so long as I maintain a register of devices (with required info), a procedure for verifying device accuracy (traceable to NIST), and provide a suitable environment, any device can be verified prior to use by any person so long as the results are recorded and acceptable.

This is where the twist is.

If I intended to verify a diameter of 2.000", then couldn't I simply use a 2.000" gage block to verify my device, record that it measured 2.000", then take my measurements of the diameter?
Keep in mind that I am not calibrating the device and only verifying its ability to accurately measure within the range of that feature.

This is a practice of mine whether the tool is calibrated or not. I always verify my inspection tools with a known standard (gage) within the range I intend to use in measuring. A calibration sticker is nice but only says that its accuracy was checked and found acceptable at some time before and not that its accurate at any time after.

Good habits.

I am fairly new to AS9100 and my company is getting certified. Can anyone tell me the difference between Calibrated and Inspected? We have calipers that have a certificate of inspection but I am wondering if there is some nuance to the vocabulary. I am faced with the decision to A: have one pair of calipers set aside for final QA or B: Use the "inspected" and get a master to back up the inspection caplipers.

Thanks,

Sam

If this is the usual paper that comes with calipers, then send the calipers out to a laboratory accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 for length, and have them calibrated.....

QC Kid

It sounds good as long as you remember that you must meet all the requirements of Clause 7.6 during your verification of M&MD. Replace the word calibrate with verification and you will see that all the requirements stated for calibration apply.

Also remember that the person or persons performing this verification of M&MD must be trained and found competent to perform this verification per the requirements of 7.6 as required by Clause 6.2.