We fabricate aluminum laminates to form a certain shape by using pre-cut and measured wooden patterns. We simply place the wooden patterns on top of the aluminun laminate and cut around the outline of the model, the outcome is cut metal laminate product that will go to our customers. Question is: How do you calibrate these patterns in order to be in compliance? Really look forward to your comments. Note: these patterns for example indicate where drilling of holes will be and other characteristics in the aluminum laminates. What is an auditor looking for in this case.

I am not sure that 'calibration' is the right word to use here in the context of ISO 9001 clause 7.6. I suspect that you can tell whether the patterns are right by inspecting the product. I assume that you have drawings/specifications for what the finished product should be so as long as the product is right, the pattern is doing its job.

"We simply place the wooden patterns on top of the aluminun laminate and cut around the outline of the model"

The patterns are producing "Tool controled" features and so you would just need to treat them as calibrated tools. There should be a print of what they were fabricated to ( if not what happens if one gets damaged or lost?). These tools are then dimensionaly checked to the controling data. When they were originaly fabricted you hopefully checked one of the parts produced so you can show that the part meets its design data.
This original qualification and regular dimensional verification of the tool should address the issue.
Any surface of the tool that could be subject to wear should have some visable indicator to show that it has been damaged. A good indicator would be to prime the edge and then paint over this with a differant color. Evidance of th prime layer would require recheck of the tool for excessive wear. The other method would be set back marks to the edge.
:2cents:

You really should be verifying the shape/feature locations - which can be done any number of ways, but cmm/shadograph seem to be appropriate. Record the results, review them compared to product specs and decide if the verification is good enough to use to pass a good/fail a bad part.

Thanks Andy, should they have a review or calibration label, calibrated by, calibration frequency, how would you handle the ID process of the pattern? should they be listed in a database? comment.

Thanks Andy, should they have a review or calibration label, calibrated by, calibration frequency, how would you handle the ID process of the pattern? should they be listed in a database? comment.

I'd give them some form of id - the part # and rev would be appropriate (if you have more than one for each part number, then an additional suffix would help). Also, you could put a 'verified' indicator. I'd be wary of using 'calibration, because that could lead to some requirements which aren't really necessary - traceability for one. Frequency should be based on a guesstimate based on material of pattern, usage etc. Once a year could be too infrequent, so a study would be in order. If you have a cal. dbase, then list them in there.

I am not sure that 'calibration' is the right word to use here in the context of ISO 9001 clause 7.6. I suspect that you can tell whether the patterns are right by inspecting the product. I assume that you have drawings/specifications for what the finished product should be so as long as the product is right, the pattern is doing its job.

I have audited garment industry. They have patterns for many products like Jackets. What I verify is that they have the specs, drawings, the pattern, and that they are controlled?
As long as the product is right, the pattern is doing its job.