Late calibration (Calibration Past Due Date) - What do I do now?

[dbulak]

I forgot to send in a piece of equipment that needed it's yearly calibration. I sent it in a month after it was due. Should I write myself a corrective action? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[Manix]

I think it would be worth it, to avoid it happening again. You obviously don't have a "Mistake Proofing" type system in place that ensures that all equipment is calibrated as and when requried without fail.

You need to look into how you record calibration and how an effective reminder system can be implemented. Was the equipment used outside of it's calibrated state? If so that could lead to non-confirmance of some kind, either waste of OK products not being detected correctly or even worse, non conformaning product going out of the door! Definate need for corrective action to fix the problem, IMO.

[Ted Schmitt]

In Reply to Parent Post by dbulak

I forgot to send in a piece of equipment that needed it's yearly calibration. I sent it in a month after it was due. Should I write myself a corrective action? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

7.6 States "In addition, the organization shall assess and record the validity of the previous measuring results when the equipment is found not to conform to requirements. The organization shall take appropriate action on the equipment and any product affected."

Therefore, IMO, yes you should write up a Non conformity report and take corrective action. You also should "back track" the measurements made with this instrument to see if you approved a "bad" product... Here at our factory, each machine (CNC lathes and mechanical lathes), has an inspection form which has the periodic measurement checks and also the instrument number that was utilized. This way I can easily check which parts where measured with which instrument.

[AndyN]

In Reply to Parent Post by dbulak

I forgot to send in a piece of equipment that needed it's yearly calibration. I sent it in a month after it was due. Should I write myself a corrective action? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Not at all! Firstly, why bother? One item isn't a systemmic issue and now you've done it, you're unlikely to forget again...........(unless it's the only item you have to send out)

What you should do, is allow yourself (in your calibration procedure) to write an extension to the calibration anniversary. You see, most items get calibrated on a time base, like annually, but don't require calibration on the same basis. Take a look at the data from previous calibrations and see how close the equipment's results are compared to the specification for the equipment and the product/process parameters (it's used to measure).

Once you know this, you can go ahead and write the 'extention' statement with the supporting data.

BTW - effective calibration systems allow recall periods. based on data, not timing of the recall.......

Hope this helps.

[Wes Bucey]

In Reply to Parent Post by tedschmitt

7.6 States "In addition, the organization shall assess and record the validity of the previous measuring results when the equipment is found not to conform to requirements. The organization shall take appropriate action on the equipment and any product affected."

Therefore, IMO, yes you should write up a Non conformity report and take corrective action. You also should "back track" the measurements made with this instrument to see if you approved a "bad" product... Here at our factory, each machine (CNC lathes and mechanical lathes), has an inspection form which has the periodic measurement checks and also the instrument number that was utilized. This way I can easily check which parts where measured with which instrument.

Let's be realistic here. My experience is many instruments are still in calibration when sent to the shop or lab for the required recalibration - the whole point is to set up the schedule so the equipment does NOT go out of calibration triggering the backtracking described.

This is an opportunity to revisit your calibration schedules and adjust accordingly. Do not look at it as a major nonconformance unless the equipment WAS out of calibration and triggered the backtracking and then the nonconformance should address the matter of ALL calibration schedules and the process to assure the schedule is followed.

[Benjamin28]

As Manix suggested I do think it would be appropriate, mainly because your process should not allow you to "forget" to calibrate an item. One thing I'm interested in however, if you did indeed forget to calibrate by the due date, was the instrument still in use?

Your system should not only ensure calibrations are done in a timely manner, but also that instruments which are due for calibration are immediately recalled from production or otherwise identified as unusable.

It shouldn't be too difficult to make this process more mistake proof, but anyhow, yes CA is appropriate with a focus on correcting your process so that items can not be simply "forgotten" and items overdue for calibration are removed from use.

[Ted Schmitt]

In Reply to Parent Post by Wes Bucey

Let's be realistic here. My experience is many instruments are still in calibration when sent to the shop or lab for the required recalibration - the whole point is to set up the schedule so the equipment does NOT go out of calibration triggering the backtracking described.

This is an opportunity to revisit your calibration schedules and adjust accordingly. Do not look at it as a major nonconformance unless the equipment WAS out of calibration and triggered the backtracking and then the nonconformance should address the matter of ALL calibration schedules and the process to assure the schedule is followed.

Wes,

I agree 100% with you... but, my answer was based on the info that was given that the instrument was sent to calibration one month after the calibration was due...

[Benjamin28]

Hmm...

I don't agree, I don't see this as a question of whether the instrument is or was in tolerance, or whether the calibration frequency is appropriate, or opening the question of adjusting frequencies.

I see this as a human error which needs to be accounted for in the calibration process so that the organization can consistently meet the planned recall and calibration dates it assigns to its instruments.