The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums
Clarification on Calibration/Verification Records 7.1.5.2.1d (IATF 16949)
Please read this thread...
Software update
Clarification on Calibration/Verification Records 7.1.5.2.1d (IATF 16949)
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > > >
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Clarification on Calibration/Verification Records 7.1.5.2.1d (IATF 16949)

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Courtesy Quick Links


Links Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in the quest for knowledge and support:

Jennifer Kirley's
Conway Business Services


Howard's
International Quality Services


Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum


Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining


Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC



International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

AIAG - Automotive Industry Action Group

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Organization for Standardization - ISO Standards and Information

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology


Some Related Topic Tags
calibration (general topics), calibration reports and certificates, records (evidence) and records control
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 19th May 2017, 03:15 PM
mans442

 
 
Total Posts: 1
Thank You! Clarification on Calibration/Verification Records 7.1.5.2.1d (IATF 16949)

As it states:
d) when a piece of inspection measurement and test equipment is found to be out of calibration or defective during its planned verification or calibration or during its use, documented information on the validity of previous measurement results obtained with this piece of of inspection measurement and test equipment shall be retained, include the associated standard's last calibration date and the next due date on the calibration report;

Does this mean that if, we find a gage out of calibration or defective during a planned calibration check or during normal use, we need to maintain the last calibration record of the now defective gage back to when it was in calibration?

Thanks,
Jason

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 19th May 2017, 03:41 PM
Sunday's Avatar
Sunday

 
 
Total Posts: 41
Re: Clarification on Calibration/verification Records 7.1.5.2.1d

An effective calibration program should already have the last date of calibration (last known good date). If a piece of measurement equipment is found to be out of calibration, an investigation should be performed to determine the risk to outgoing product. This investigation should include an analysis of the time at which it may have gone out of calibration, the quantity of material affected, and the severity of the erroneous measurements. I recommend documenting this information with the calibration records including any adjustments that were performed on the tool to return it to good working order. An assessment should be made if product must be recalled as a result of the erroneous measurements (in the most severe cases). You could use your corrective action system as a good way of documenting this information, in the absence of a good asset tracking database.
Thank You to Sunday for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #3  
Old 19th May 2017, 03:47 PM
Marc's Avatar
Marc

 
 
Total Posts: 26,591
Re: Clarification on Calibration/verification Records 7.1.5.2.1d

Just to be clear - What standard are you referring to?
  Post Number #4  
Old 22nd May 2017, 12:02 AM
dgriffith

 
 
Total Posts: 233
Re: Clarification on Calibration/Verification Records 7.1.5.2.1d

For AS9100C(now D), our entire org is under that umbrella. Whether the out of tolerance/non-conforming asset belongs to the lab or the customer, we (the org) are required to report the OOT and research all measurements/results to determine if there was any impact on those measurements. If the customer, it is incumbent on them to figure out what to do once notified.
The lab would do the same, but it becomes a problem when a standard has calibrated dozens if not hundreds of customer assets, which may need to be recalled.
Whether AS9100 or 17025, if your lab equipment, you need to keep a record of this verification process and the results of any investigation.
  Post Number #5  
Old 27th June 2018, 04:19 PM
DietCokeofEvil's Avatar
DietCokeofEvil

 
 
Total Posts: 66
Re: Clarification on Calibration/Verification Records 7.1.5.2.1d (IATF 16949)

So question on this. We, of course, keep records on our equipment and list the equipment used, cert # and date due on our certifications for customers, but we do not list the date calibrated. This has never been an issue and is not required by 17025 to be reported on the cert.

However, when we have a 16949 customer who has a nonconformancy, do we need to report this?
  Post Number #6  
Old 27th June 2018, 07:09 PM
Ninja's Avatar
Ninja

 
 
Total Posts: 1,032
Re: Clarification on Calibration/Verification Records 7.1.5.2.1d (IATF 16949)

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by DietCokeofEvil View Post

So question on this. We, of course, keep records on our equipment and list the equipment used, cert # and date due on our certifications for customers, but we do not list the date calibrated. This has never been an issue and is not required by 17025 to be reported on the cert.

However, when we have a 16949 customer who has a nonconformancy, do we need to report this?
I keep reading this and re-reading this trying to make it make sense...

You make product, and send a cert with it?
Or you are a calibration lab calibrating customer equipment and sending a cal cert with that?

If the former...you don't need to report calibration date on your product cert...but you do need to know the last time the measuring equipment passed calibration before it failed...and have some way of knowing what lots were measured on that equipment in between.
All lots measured (passed) on that equipment become in question since you don't know when your equipment went "bad"...could have been the day after it passed calibration.
Been there, done that...We found the limit of risk and communicated "This happened, this is the extent, and this is why you shouldn't worry about it, and this is what we've done so it won't happen again" to the customer all at the same time. Trust needs to be maintained.

If the latter (cal lab), it's really your customer's problem to track equipment usage and cal dates. I figure you should be able to calculate them from the cal due date anyway...
If you're a cal lab, however, you find that your standards fail and you don't know how far back the issue goes...you've got issues...and so do your customers...
  Post Number #7  
Old 28th June 2018, 01:36 PM
DietCokeofEvil's Avatar
DietCokeofEvil

 
 
Total Posts: 66
Re: Clarification on Calibration/Verification Records 7.1.5.2.1d (IATF 16949)

Sorry- I did write that in a hurry. We are a calibration lab, and one of our customers approached us with this question. If we reject their gage, do we need to provide the date calibrated on the equipment we used to check it? Their auditor is insisting we need to provide the info.
  Post Number #8  
Old 28th June 2018, 02:30 PM
Ninja's Avatar
Ninja

 
 
Total Posts: 1,032
Re: Clarification on Calibration/Verification Records 7.1.5.2.1d (IATF 16949)

You need to know your equipment works right...and use it to calibrate the customer's gage. I would ASSUME that you then tell the customer (on the report you give) what date it was done, pass or fail and support data.

If your customer is IATF16949, all the rest is on them...it's their gage to maintain and use, not yours.

If the gage fails...it's their issue to figure out when and to assess the impact of having used it.

I am surprised, however, that no such notification requirement is placed on you by your own accreditation...or do I misunderstand?

"If we reject their gage, do we need to provide the date calibrated on the equipment we used to check it? Their auditor is insisting we need to provide the info."
As a customer, I would insist on making sure your "Fail" pronouncement is justified...false-fail costs a lot of money. Why the customer's auditor is insisting on it is beyond me...it should be your customer themselves...but I'd give it to the customer just because they asked for it. Surely you know the last time your standard was verified??
Else how would you know it is still valid to use?
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > > >

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
Emoticons 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
Calibration/Verification Records - IATF 16949 section 7.1.5.2.1 f) bkirch IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6 19th March 2018 08:32 AM
IATF 16949 Cl. 7.1.5.2.1 "Calibration/Verification Records" Interpretation Peters IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12 19th August 2017 04:04 PM
TS-16949 7.6.2 ? Calibration/Verification Records - Assessment of the Impact GoKats78 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5 18th March 2013 06:33 PM
Calibration and Verification Records - TS 16949 Clause 7.6.2 kat.k. General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 8 19th September 2010 09:25 PM
TS 16949 Clause 7.6.2 Calibration Verification Records Sue Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 7 7th November 2002 05:40 AM



The time now is 01:20 PM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



Misc. Internal Links


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"