Wolfe said:
With A2LA being a signatory of ILAC and NAVLAP being a member of ILAC, and PRI-NADCAP being a signatory of NAVLAP then shouldn't PRI-NADCAP recognize an A2LA Accreditation. If not then why not? Then why have the MRA to begin with if no one is going to recognize it.
It is NVLAP not NAVLAP. While I don't agree with the separate Accreditation, I believe the reason that NADCAP does not accept the A2LA is that the A2LA is based on ISO/IEC 17025, while there are many specific additional requirements to meet NADCAP. As an example for stress rupture testing, ISO/IEC 17025 allows the lab to specify the ASTM standard that they comply with. The NADCAP document states which type of thermocouples are permitted, based on the temperature range of the test. They also specify how many and where the thermocouples must be placed and the allowable temperature variation from the specified test temperature.
These specific requirements are based on the history of tests and the experience of aerospace primes in their own laboratories and in supplier laboratories.
NADCAP also specifies "special processes." An aerospace prime will conduct a separate audit for special processes, in addition to the PRI audit. Examples include welding and sieve screening. These special processes are often dependent on the operator skills.
Another area is collaborative testing, round robin testing, and/or proficiency testing. A2LA requires interlaboratory testing, but lets the lab select which program in which to participate. The NADCAP requires both internal and external comparison testing. They also periodically send test specimens for the lab to test, and results are compared between many labs. As a result, the NADCAP program requires many more comparison tests that is typically required to satisfy the A2LA auditors. In all cases, if your results are outliers, then corrective action is required.
Wes R.