|
|
 |

17th October 2005, 10:56 AM
|
 |
Cal Supervisor
Registration Date: Oct 2005
Location: Snoqualmie, WA, USA
|
|
Posts: 11
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 17 Karma: 10 
|
|
17025 Para. 5.6.2 - Calibration certificates - Measurement results - Uncertainty
17025 states that when using external calibration services, traceability of measurement shall be assured by the use of calibration services from laboratories that can demonstrate competence, measurement capability and traceability. The calibration certificates issued by these laboratories shall contain the measurement results, including the measurement uncertainty and/or a statement of compliance with an identified metrological specification.
My question is, finally, when our calibration lab sends its primary standards to an external calibration lab, do we need to specifically request As-Found/As-Left Data with our calibration certificates? or Is As-Found Condition as stated suffice to meet 17025?
Joel
|

17th October 2005, 11:15 AM
|
 |
Quality Metallurgist
Registration Date: Jun 2004
Location: Western Pennsylvania, USA
Age: 57
|
|
Posts: 466
Thanks Given to Others: 19
Thanked 33 Times in 27 Posts
Karma Power: 54
|
|
Hi Joe, it's been about 5 years since I was working with calibration requirements for a lab. (At that time it was guide 25 & we were transitioning to guide 17025.) For calibration certs, we needed to receive as found and as left conditions, to be compliant with guide 17025. We also required an instrument/device condition to be reported - an example might be: Used, in good condition, repaired, new, etc.
|

17th October 2005, 01:15 PM
|
 |
VINI, VIDI, DORMIVI
Registration Date: Feb 2002
Location: Walled Lake, Michigan
|
|
Posts: 1,153
Thanks Given to Others: 20
Thanked 79 Times in 51 Posts
Karma Power: 84
|
|
Joel,
According to our auditor we needed to specifically request 17025 calibrations and have it noted on the certificate. The "As-Found" and "As-Left" are needed to verify measurment based upon your standards in the event that one is damaged or is giving errors.
__________________
"What this country needs is more unemployed politicians." Edward Langley
|

17th October 2005, 04:07 PM
|
 |
Cal Supervisor
Registration Date: Oct 2005
Location: Snoqualmie, WA, USA
|
|
Posts: 11
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 17 Karma: 10 
|
|
As-Found/As-Left Data
Do I take that to mean that if we specify a 17025 calibration on our primary standards sent to an external calibration lab, that those units will (should) be returned to us with data?
|

17th October 2005, 10:44 PM
|
 |
Metrologist-Auditor
Registration Date: Mar 2004
Location: So Cal, California, U.S.
Age: 53
|
|
Posts: 1,621
Thanks Given to Others: 1
Thanked 310 Times in 224 Posts
Karma Power: 186
|
|
It is highly desirable to report readings, whether in or out of adjustment.....however, it is not specifically required unless the item is out of tolerance (OOT).
As for measurement uncertainty, yes it needs to be reported.
Hershal
|

18th October 2005, 09:06 AM
|
 |
VINI, VIDI, DORMIVI
Registration Date: Feb 2002
Location: Walled Lake, Michigan
|
|
Posts: 1,153
Thanks Given to Others: 20
Thanked 79 Times in 51 Posts
Karma Power: 84
|
|
Joel,
If you put that requirement on your PO, the info should be returned to you. I haven't had an issue receiving the data, the calibration house we use was giving us the 17025 requirement without it being requested.
__________________
"What this country needs is more unemployed politicians." Edward Langley
|

18th October 2005, 04:39 PM
|
 |
$ Contributor
Registration Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lilburn, GA, USA
Age: 60
|
|
Posts: 401
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Karma Power: 63
|
|
For many calibration labs you do have to specify before and after data if you want it, otherwise you probably won't get it. And it usually costs more.
Why do you want both sets of data for a calibration standard? If the standard is subject to drift or wear, the "before" data quantifies how much since the prior calibration. The "after" data sets a baseline value for the upcoming interval. Both values get plotted on a run chart, and once you have "enough" data you can start to calculate the actual uncertainty of your standard based on its recorded calibration data. You also get information that may allow (or require) adjusting the calibration interval for best performance. Just for those two types of knowledge the data is worth the money.
__________________
Graeme C. Payne
ASQ Sr. Member; CQE; CCT
"Does it matter if the measurement result is wrong?
If it does, then calibrate the instrument.
If it doesn't matter, they why are you making the measurement?"
(P. G. Stein, 2000)
|
Lower Navigation Bar
|
|
|
|
Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors and 1 Unregistered Guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Rate Thread Content |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Settings
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|