Disagreement concerning 4.10.6.5 - National Recognized vs 'Home Grown' Procedures

Discussion and some disagreement concerning 4.10.6.5 about recgonized laboratories.

We currently have an home grown procedures. All equipment and gages are sent to recgonized NIST labs for accreditation. The data returned with the gages is to NIST and references various Mil-Std.

Does this meet the requirement as spelled out in Laboratory Testing and Calibration Methods 4.10.6.5 or do we need the Mil-Standards referenced from our suppliers?

Thank for any help you might give.

[Marc]

Two questions:

1. What do you mean by 'NIST Recognized'?
2. 4.10.6.5 is about methods and sampling, not recognition.

Will you rephrase your question, please?

If you are talking about 'Recognition', I assume you mean 4.11.2.b.1 'Accredited Lab' requirement, in which case: The big 3 has waived the calibration laboratory requirements in the QS9000 Third Editon, 4.11.2.b.1 until January 2001.

Clarification of question.

We are currently having all outside calibrations done by ISO Certified labs who calibrate to NIST traceable.

The statement of methods within 4.10.6.5 has been interpreted by my boss to think we need to know what method used to calibrate the equipment tested.

Again I am heading down the wrong road. As you know a lot of calibration houses refer to Mil-Std-46552A which is obsolete but still may be used for reference.

My boss wants all recommended methods for testing of equipment going outside to be documented.

I am currently going to a military database for all the methods recommended for testing of gages and equipment.

QS9000 Third edition is so much fun. If I seem confused it may because I really am.

Thanks again Mark.

[Marc]

We are currently having all outside calibrations done by ISO Certified labs who calibrate to NIST traceable.

I would think the ISO registration would be sufficient. It remains to be seen in the QS9000 arena what will really happen with the A2LA and Guide 25 (and related) issues.

The statement of methods within 4.10.6.5 has been interpreted by my boss to think we need to know what method used to calibrate the equipment tested.

You can ask for or require a copy of the first page of the procedure used to calibrate the device / instrument if you want to take it to the extreme.

Again I am heading down the wrong road. As you know a lot of calibration houses refer to Mil-Std-46552A which is obsolete but still may be used for reference.

The only problem is 45662A 'the minimum' and it isn't recognized (well known or understood) by a lot of folks. A matrix would provide proof.

My boss wants all recommended methods for testing of equipment going outside to be documented.

If the labs you are dealing with are ISO9002 registered, they are required to have documented procedures - but ask for a copy of their quality manual.

I am currently going to a military database for all the methods recommended for testing of gages and equipment.

That will do most of the basics of QS cal requirements, but you should matrix the requirements to identify any extra QS issues and as a map. You do, as a minimum, have a written procedure for calibrating each device / instrument / system / gage. There is no requirement specific enought to proscribe content of calibration procedures.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 21-03-99).]

Thanks Marc