Audit Finding for this section - Min and Max for measurements - Attribute Gage

[jethehiker - 2006]

Time to sing the blues


I just went through my surveillance audit and 1 finding was I was not putting down the Min and Max for measurements , HOWEVER .I am using Attribute gaging (pin gages) for the dimensions, the auditor was not seeing it that way and would not remove the finding , am I out of line to maybe go over his head in trying to get this finding removed. its only a minor but ..its a finding none the less.


Jim

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by jethehiker

Time to sing the blues


I just went through my surveillance audit and 1 finding was I was not putting down the Min and Max for measurements , HOWEVER .I am using Attribute gaging (pin gages) for the dimensions, the auditor was not seeing it that way and would not remove the finding , am I out of line to maybe go over his head in trying to get this finding removed. its only a minor but ..its a finding none the less.


Jim

Please post the audit finding exactly as the auditor wrote it, including reference to the "shall" in the standard or your internal documentation that was allegedly violated.

[jethehiker - 2006]

AS9100B 8.2.4 Evidence of Comformity with the acceptance criteria shall be maintained.


Finding

For 3 of 4 jobs sampled (37956R2, 41393,45562) either the Min or Max actual data was not recorded as required on final inspection documentation.


I use a electronic data base with colums and last yr at my audit he wrote me up because I didn't have a Min and Max colum ..

I just can't win

[RCBeyette]

If your own documentation requires it and it's not being completed, then yes, I see why the nonconformance was issued.

I don't know enough about the area to say whether min/max information is necessary, but if you added the columns - thus making it part of your process - failure to record the information is a nonconformance.

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by jethehiker

AS9100B 8.2.4 Evidence of Comformity with the acceptance criteria shall be maintained.


Finding

For 3 of 4 jobs sampled (37956R2, 41393,45562) either the Min or Max actual data was not recorded as required on final inspection documentation.


I use a electronic data base with colums and last yr at my audit he wrote me up because I didn't have a Min and Max colum ..

I just can't win

I'm not an expert in aerospace stuff, but it looks to me like your first mistake was adding the Min and Max columns. The standard, as quoted, requires evidence of conformity with acceptance criteria. Unless the standard, or your company requirements, require a specific way of creating records of conformance, then the auditor is off-base. Do you have records that provide evidence of conformance with acceptance criteria? Why is the auditor concerned with mins and maxs?

[jethehiker - 2006]

As I stated I using Attribute gaging and sometiems its supplied by customer these are Pass/Fail things there is no range ..

[Marc]

In Reply to Parent Post by jethehiker

As I stated I using Attribute gaging and sometiems its supplied by customer these are Pass/Fail things there is no range ..

I see this as the key in this discussion: Attribute Gage. Personally, I'd contest the finding.

This auditor was the same one who wrote you up this year?

[Sidney Vianna]

It is very hard to start second guessing here without a lot of background information. If any of the dimensions being measured is a key characteristic, then the actual dimension record is typically required. Further, one of the main concerns in aerospace is to reduce variation in parts. So, there might be a reason for a min/max requirement. Do you know if AS9103 is a requirement being invoked by your aerospace customers?

However, if your practice of using pin gages to check dimensions as go/no-go is acceptable to your customer and your own command media, the finding could be appealed.