Hi Everyone - need some help again.

Was conducting some internal auditing yesterday to 7.6.2 and have a question on Quality Department's recording method for micrometers.

There are just 4 columms: Date, Method, Performed by, and Condition. In the last columns they record "Good" or "Adjust". The actual reading of the mic is not recorded - does it need to be? I thought I read somewhere that it did, but for the life of me, cannot find it stated as such in the standard.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
Sue
PS - Great news the other day - we were informed that our certification audit scheduled for Dec. 18-20 may also be a witness audit with the IAOB looking over the registrars shoulder. Could things get any better?:bonk:

ISO 17025 Clause 5.10.2.2 g) - Test or calibration results with units of measurement;

Would this apply to ISO/TS 16949 as well? There is no "g" under 7.6.2 in this standard?

Thanks,
Sue

I am only presuming! I believe 17025 is the standard for calibration in QS, just assuming the same for 16949. It makes sense anyway to have actual results for Measurement System Analysis and/or to review with measurment uncertainty.

Refer to 7.6.2 in the TS spec.

In my opinion, it is very important that the readings from each block you use be recorded. Otherwise, you have no record of the actual calibration results.
I would have to question why you would adjust a gage without data to back it up. Was it out of tolerance? By how much? Was it within tolerance and you just tweaked it?

I've enclosed our form we have used for calibrations/verifications. The "before" is the readings we take before any cleaning or adjustments have been made. This would indicate how the gage was performing when we received it in the lab.
The "after" is the readings after cleaning / adjustment to make sure the gage is within tolerance.

Sue - just to reinforce Kens point - you MUST record results for calibration in the as recieved condition, and also after any adjustments made to the equipment.

The auditor will also check that if any adjustments were needed to bring the gauge back into calibration limits; what action did you take to ensure that any product checked with this gauge is conforming, or if suspect contained appropriately, or if you have a system in place for informing your customer if you think defective products may have been shipped. :bonk:

Dave.C (another Dave)

If you record the values, you may notice that they never change. This would be a good reason to increase the checking period. You may be checking too frequently. The one year period sounds about right but you can alter it as you wish provided you can justify the decision.
On the other hand, you might notice from the recorded values that you are rapidly approaching the limit and that by next year you would probably be outside.