Attaching calibration due dates to gages - Sloppy technicians

[bobdoering]

Can you help us by giving us some more details? Where have you seen this? Was there a specific philosophy as to why (I.e.: employees are trained to look <here> daily, or gages were too greasy for a sticker to stay attached, or something like that.)?

Meat?

The systems that are deemed acceptable generally have a gage tracking database (or spreadsheet?), with the due dates built into it. The gage only has a serial number on it. A report is generated (monthly, weekly, or so) and the gage tech will retrieve the gages, or post the report to have the operators submit the gages to the gage lab. A late list is maintained, for lost gages, people on vacation, etc., to highlight the those gages need for calibration.

If the audit technique described shows the process is effective, it is permitted to continue. Internal audits, layered audits, can keep some of the strays in check.

(Meat on Friday during Lent. Sorry. )

 

[kat.k.]

Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions. I will consult with the Quality Manager about starting a system of removing the due dates.

Kat

 

[Petar Sakic]

The systems that are deemed acceptable generally have a gage tracking database (or spreadsheet?), with the due dates built into it. The gage only has a serial number on it. A report is generated (monthly, weekly, or so) and the gage tech will retrieve the gages, or post the report to have the operators submit the gages to the gage lab. A late list is maintained, for lost gages, people on vacation, etc., to highlight the those gages need for calibration.

If the audit technique described shows the process is effective, it is permitted to continue. Internal audits, layered audits, can keep some of the strays in check.

(Meat on Friday during Lent. Sorry. )

we have a system exactly like this also

database gives report at the end of month, showing due dates and responsible persons (locations) for gages, printed out and entitled to chiefs of sectors, like: "please return these gages to QC dept. for checkup"

Auditors tend to look for labels, but always give an ok for such a system.

p.s. needles to say, database also has options to print certificates for gages we can checkup ourselves, so it makes mantainance very elegant

p.p.s. the only issue is: what if someone brings his own caliper from home, not report it to QC people and use it to measure production parts

 

[Pankaj Kumar]

The Tag/Labels are hard to maintain and easily give way in the oily and greasy atmosphere.

We have individual code numbers etched on the gage at incoming inspection. These code numbers are recorded on a format which has months Jan to Dec on the top. We put a circle under the month of the due date. When the instrument returns after calibration the blank circle is coloured green if 'okay' or colured red if 'rejected'. If border line case or need 'repair', then circle is coloured yellow
This sheet is maintained in duplicate, one with Q/A and other with the stores. The advantage is that the store keeper quarantines the instruments 'due for calibration', ensuring it can not be issued. This method is foolproof, and we never find a single un-calibrated gauge on the shop floor.

 

[IngridD - 2012]

I read all the remarks in this thread. I noticed that the last remark was posted somewhere in the first half of this year and therefor must make reference to TS 16949:2002.

I have had two remarks recently from customers regarding the calibration status.
The first customer informed me during a customer <-> supplier conference that the TS requirements concerning calibration has changed in the new version TS. The quality guy mentioned that the gages MUST contain information about calibration status (just a number would not suffice). During the conference I could not discuss this with him while the 2009 version was just 2 days old and not yet read by me. Later I tried to find ground for this requirement (par 7.6) without succes.
Just last week during another 2nd party audit. The auditor made a remark: "Measuring equipment could have identifier displaying a "do not use after" date".

We are pretty much doing the same as everybody else in this thread, identify gages and have status etc in computer files available, 3rd party auditors have alway approved this system. Right now, it seems that with the new TS revision, requirements have been tightened, at least according to feedback from our customers.

Anyone has an opinion on this. Has the TS been changed on this topic, that I am not aware of??

 

[SpinDr99]

Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions. I will consult with the Quality Manager about starting a system of removing the due dates.

Kat

Kat,

I come from the school that says the operator has ultimate responsibility to ensure the device is in a known state of current calibration. I've used scotch tape to adhere calibration labels to instruments, I've even used paper tags with a string to hold the calibration sticker, sometimes a label is also placed on the instrument box (for mics and calipers etc.). In the end, the status needs to be easily identified and not be a hassle for the operator to determine if the gage is in a valid state of calibration. Software should only be used for positive recall and determining outstanding gages requiring calibration. What I can tell you, is that there's always a way to maintain a calibration label to a device/instrument so it's easy for the operator to ensure a proper state of calibration. THEN, if need be, and an operator is identified as someone who repeatedly is found to use an instrument past its due date, a CAR can be generated to reinforce the message that the operator is responsible.

 

[Ninja]

I come from the school that says the operator has ultimate responsibility to ensure the device is in a known state of current calibration....snip... In the end, the status needs to be easily identified and not be a hassle for the operator to determine if the gage is in a valid state of calibration.

That's a fine approach, though I've always been in the opposite school.
The operator only has access to gages in "a known state of calibration". In the end, the fact that they can physically access the gage is hassle free and proof that they can use it. Calibration stickers are a nice backup reminder, but if missing don't cause any problem.

In my 'school' the person responsible for the calibration system bears the ultimate responsiblity...and they have locked cabinets, lockout/tagout tools and the authority to remove any tool from use the day calibration period is surpassed. (As well as the responsibility to schedule calibration before it comes to that).

I figure both ways can work...and that it's just preference in a given workplace.

 

[Eredhel]

For us the machinists definitely like that another department takes care of it, they're able to focus on other things. However I've seen quality departments make it difficult and that doesn't help anyone.