What is the difference between ANSI/NCSL Z540-1, Z540-2 and Z540-3?

Hi,

I want to implement the following standards in our systsem and I was wondering if someone can tell me the difference between the 3.

Thank you

George

I moved the thread as it deals with calibration-specific standards.

ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994 and Z540.3-2006 are similar in intent, though different in structure and requirements. Z540.3 is updated, includes most of the requirements from MIL-STD-45662A, and is generally aligned with ANS/ISO/IEC 17025:2005.

ANSI/NCSL Z540-2-1997 is the U.S. version of the GUM (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement).

Hope this helps.

Hershal

I just read the Z540.3, as I was unaware the standard was changed from 540.1, twice, sheesh, anyway, from what I can see one of the major changes is the Before and After data. 540.3 says it must appear on the cert, 540.1 does not have that. We offer calibrations but have always had customers request B/A data as it takes longer to do.

Should we have always been doing B/A data? The labs we get our meters done at have separate pricing for B/A data and have z540.1 and 17025 compliance statements. I've re-read the 540.1 standard and it does not require the B/A data. I also don't see the requirement in 17025.

I've been doing this job for a few years, but it never ceases to amaze me how far behind I get in my reading...

thank you in advance,
Robbin

17025 has the requirement for before and after readings in the standard para. 5.10.4.3. Of course the requirement for adjustment has always been when the instrument is out of tolerance. Depending on your laboratories procedures the instrument should also be adusted to minimize error in the case of it being close to the tolerance.

Melinda

I'd like to ask this question a bit differently. If ANSI Z540.1 was "withdrawn" and replaced by Z540.3, and refers to ISO 17025 in matters of calibration of measuring and test equipment (§5.3), but ISO 17025 never refers to Z540, why do we even need Z540? If i'm going to claim compliance, why not just claim ISO 17025 and be done with it?

I can image a company quality plan where Z540.3 adherence is achieved, and no accreditation is required. Would this then give reason fore some organizations to state Z540.3 compliance, but not ISO/IEC 17025 compliance then. 17025 accreditation is not a economy plan. Agilent is Z540.3 certified, which would suggest a quality value.
They discuss that in absract:

http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/ncsli2009_dobbert.pdf

Yerbero said:



Yerbero, this is what I have been getting at as well. Does everyone keep forgetting that ANSI Z540.3-2006 is completely VOLUNTARY?

The bottomline for our company Yerbero, is the president wants to be able to say the words "Our company is A2LA Accredited" or "Our company is ISO 17025 Certified". The top management perspective is: what ever we need todo to get there is all I care about. I want to do the minimal amount so that I can make one or both of these statements.

As you implement ISO 17025:2005, I recommend to keep a simple goal like this in mind. Then you will know exactly what you need to do.

If you are on a tight schedule (who isn't?) to get ISO 17025 Certified, then you do not need to implement or follow any ANSI Z540.3-2006 guidelines.

I hope this helps, and I look forward to any comments.

In fact, the Z540.3 books uses the word "ISO 17025" 3 times...

Thanks,
Drew G

george1weiss said:

I understand that the question is why?
Why use a USA voluntary certification standard over a European accredited standard?
Why use Z540.3 which directs the use of NIST standards specifically?
Why use a home grown standard which is attempting to raise the bar with the false PASS/FAIL evaluations requirement, to below 2%?
It is a case of: Do you let FORD Motor Company die and buy Toyota, or support the home team?
It is all about hedging your bet on what standard will survive, and keep your company on the top of the quality propaganda mountain.
Why don’t ANSI and ISO merge?
Why don’t Ford and Toyota merge?
Food for thought……….

Click to expand...

That is good food for thought, especially, "Why don't ANSI and ISO merge?"


Hershal? AndyN? Marc? JaneB? Any other senior cover I missed I'm sorry!!


Drew G