The Elsmar Cove Wiki More Free Files The Elsmar Cove Forums Discussion Thread Index Post Attachments Listing Failure Modes Services and Solutions to Problems Elsmar cove Forums Main Page Elsmar Cove Home Page
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > National and International Business Standards and Requirements > Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)


Search the Elsmar Cove
Custom Search
Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Follow Marc & Elsmar
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed  Marc Smith's Google+ Page  Marc Smith's Linked In Page   Marc Smith's Elsmar Cove YouTube Page  Marc Smith's Facebook Page  Elsmar Cove Twitter Feed
Elsmar Cove Groups
Elsmar Cove Google+ Group  Elsmar Cove LinkedIn Group  Elsmar Cove Facebook Group
Sponsor Links





Donate and $ Contributor Forum Access
Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:

Howard's
International Quality Services
Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting
Bob Doering's
Correct SPC - Precision Machining

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook
IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors
SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers
Quality Digest Portal
IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology
ASQ - American Society for Quality

Related Topic Tags
mil-i-45208, mil-q-9858, mil-std-45662, military standards and specifications
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 4.00 average. Display Modes
  #1  
Old 6th March 2003, 08:50 AM
dbulak's Avatar
dbulak dbulak is offline
Involved in Discussions

 
Registration Date: Aug 2000
Location: usa
Age: 62
 
Posts: 282
Thanks Given to Others: 228
Thanked 16 Times in 15 Posts
Karma Power: 84
Karma: 95
dbulak has less than 100 Karma points so far.
Let Me Help You I thought that MIL-Q-9858A, MIL-I-45208A and MIL-STD-45662 were obsolete

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that MIL-Q-9858A, MIL-I-45208A and MIL-45662 were obsolete and have been replaced. Can anyone give me info on this?

Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 6th March 2003, 10:17 AM
David Hartman's Avatar
David Hartman David Hartman is offline
Involved in Discussions

 
Registration Date: Feb 2003
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Age: 61
 
Posts: 565
Thanks Given to Others: 3
Thanked 66 Times in 44 Posts
Karma Power: 105
Karma: 1651
David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.
Each of the specs that you noted were made obsolete by the DLA in 1996, as a part of the "Perry Initiatives". They were not "replaced" per se. At that time it was left up to the contractors to define the standards that they would operate under (e.g. ISO9001, etc.). In some cases, such as ESD control, the contractor could even define a company-specific standard/policy.

Hope I have answered your question.
Sponsored Links

  #3  
Old 7th March 2003, 12:13 PM
energy
Unregistered Guest

 
 
Posts: n/a
Cool They are still around

I know of a Company that still uses those "obsolete" specifications on their website. My understanding is that if the Customer, in this case the U.S. Navy, allows you to stay with these specs., it's perfectly acceptable. Also, in this case, the Navy is their only Customer. So, if you can convince your customer, they are acceptable. To me, why change? The "modern" standards are no improvement. They just muddy the water and have nothing to do with the quality of your product. JMHO
  #4  
Old 10th March 2003, 05:54 PM
Graeme's Avatar
Graeme Graeme is offline
E-Mails Invalid or Rejected by Recipient System

 
Registration Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lilburn, GA, USA
Age: 64
 
Posts: 429
Thanks Given to Others: 5
Thanked 49 Times in 27 Posts
Karma Power: 0
Karma: 1869
Graeme is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Graeme is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Graeme is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Graeme is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Graeme is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Graeme is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Graeme is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Graeme is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Graeme is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Graeme is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Graeme is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Graeme is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Send a message via Yahoo to Graeme Send a message via Skype™ to Graeme
An escapee from the mysterious ways of the government!

Aah, I wish I had ready access to the "canned" response that was in my computer when I was working with an acquisition agency ... now I have to rely on faulty memory ...

The Department of Defense regularly reviews military specifications and standards for continued applicability and effectiveness. In 1996, then-Secretary Perry directed that whenever possible, existing international, national or industry specifications and standards should be used by preference, and he greatly speeded up the the rate of review. The eventual result will be that a MIL-STD or MIL-SPEC will exist only if it fills a military need that another document does not exist for. As an example, I know of companies that have failed to get government contracts because they did not have an ISO9000- registered quality management system.

Many old documents have been cancelled; some have replacements and others do not. You can always get the current status of any DOD specification or standard at the Acquisition Streamlining and Standardization Information System (ASSIST) web site. (Free registration is needed to access some features.)

Some key points that I remember are:
  • In a NEW acquisition, the governemnt cannot require the contractor to use a canceled standard or specification.
  • A follow-on contract can require use of the specifications and standards that were in the original contract, even if they are now canceled.
  • The Contractor can always suggest using any specification or standard, even obsolete ones.
Your contracting officer should be able to provide you with the most current rules.

As to the specific standards mentioned:
  • MIL-Q9858A and MIL-I-45208 were canceled without replacement in October 1996.
  • MIL-STD-45662A was canceled in February 1995 with ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994 as the suggested replacement.
Thanks to Graeme for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  #5  
Old 11th March 2003, 07:51 AM
energy
Unregistered Guest

 
 
Posts: n/a
Re: An escapee from the mysterious ways of the government!

Quote:
Graeme said:
[*] A follow-on contract can require use of the specifications and standards that were in the original contract, even if they are now canceled. [*] The Contractor can always suggest using any specification or standard, even obsolete ones.
Thank you, Graeme. I believe the second reason shown is the one the Contractor has utilized. They make a one of a kind, very, very important product and are privately owned. They chose not to go ISO and the Customer (Navy) hasn't insisted otherwise. And, as I said, they are their only Customer. Nice position to be in.

Last edited by energy; 12th December 2003 at 08:11 AM. Reason: Spell Check
  #6  
Old 11th March 2003, 09:38 AM
Mike S. Mike S. is offline
An Early 'Cover'

 
Registration Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Coast US
 
Posts: 1,846
Thanks Given to Others: 34
Thanked 98 Times in 71 Posts
Karma Power: 238
Karma: 2094
Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Nice explanation, Guys.

I think MIL-I-45208A is still a good basic QMS standard and that there are companies out there who may not wish to go thru the gyrations of ISO 9001-1994 or -2000 that could use 45208A as a good blueprint for a nice, user-friendly, basic QMS.

Sometimes an old, otherwise "obsolete" 1963 Chevy truck can do the job just fine, even though the newer models make it "obsolete". Use what works for you and your customer even if others might think it is obsolete, salt it with a nice dose of common sense, mix in desire and hard work, and you just might kick the butts of some of the ultra-modern companies out there!

I once had an application requiring an oscilloscope that was particularly sensitive on one of its functions. None of the new 'scopes, from any mfr., could match the spec's. of an old, tube-type 'scope weighing about 70 pounds.

__________________

Mike S. ("Gun Nut")
And they ask me why I drink....
  #7  
Old 11th March 2003, 10:20 AM
David Hartman's Avatar
David Hartman David Hartman is offline
Involved in Discussions

 
Registration Date: Feb 2003
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Age: 61
 
Posts: 565
Thanks Given to Others: 3
Thanked 66 Times in 44 Posts
Karma Power: 105
Karma: 1651
David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.David Hartman is appreciated, and has over 1500 Karma points.
Actually Mil-I-45208A has never been known as a QMS. It is in-fact an "inspection system", and that only. It's requirements are virtually limited to requiring an inspection of the product prior to shipment, and segregating/dispositioning any nonconforming products.

That said, I have worked with Mil-I-45208A, Mil-Q-9858A, NHB 5300.4(1B & 1C), AQAP 1 (NATO Spec) and many other Mil/Gov/Fed and commercial specs/standards and have determined that it really doesn't matter which standard a company chooses to (or is obligated to) work under if they choose to do the right things for their business and for their customer any of these baseline templates will work. Because it's not the standard that makes a company succesful, it's their (upper management on down) concern for doing the right things in the right way for them and their customer.

I have worked with a sheet metal shop that provided formed sheet metal panels to be used by a supplier of spaceborne products to NOAA. The shop maintained no inspection activities (either at incoming, in process or final/prior to shipment), they did not have "calibrated" guages, nor did they have any documented procedures; but they had skilled sheet metal workers (average of 23 years of experience) that through contract provided these formed panels with virtually no rejects/returns from the customer (the customer had made arrangements to act as the incoming inspection and final inspection points.)

It was apparent to those of us that were receiving these panels that this sheet metal company had an excellent QMS (one though undocumented, existed in the form of company culture) which provided us with more consistent product than many of our "certified" suppliers.

It's not the Standard that matters, it's the culture behind it.
  #8  
Old 11th March 2003, 11:04 AM
Mike S. Mike S. is offline
An Early 'Cover'

 
Registration Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Coast US
 
Posts: 1,846
Thanks Given to Others: 34
Thanked 98 Times in 71 Posts
Karma Power: 238
Karma: 2094
Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Mike S. is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Quote:
ddhartma said:

It's not the Standard that matters, it's the culture behind it.
That one sentence might be the most true thing said on the Cove today.

__________________

Mike S. ("Gun Nut")
And they ask me why I drink....
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > National and International Business Standards and Requirements > Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements

Do you find this discussion thread helpful and informational?


Bookmarks


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
MIL-STD-105D & MIL-STD-105E Differences Link Xue Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 24 9th March 2012 08:45 AM
Looking for MIL-STD-1686B (MIL-STD-1686 revision B) Al Rosen Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 4 7th July 2009 02:42 PM
MIL-STD-1916 vs. MIL-STD-105E - What are the differences between the two documents? csoto ISO 10013 - Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 1 29th November 2004 10:08 AM
MIL STD 45662 TO ISO 10012-1? BOB@PTE ISO 17025 and related Metrology Topics - Measurement Devices, Calibration and Test Laboratories 2 5th June 2001 06:32 PM
What ever happened to MIL-STD-45662A and MIL-HANDBOOK-52 TheOtherMe ISO 17025 and related Metrology Topics - Measurement Devices, Calibration and Test Laboratories 0 22nd July 1999 05:42 PM



The time now is 01:42 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


   


Marc Timothy Smith - Elsmar.com
8466 LeSourdsville-West Chester Road, Olde West Chester, Ohio 45069-1929
513 341-6272