Control of Personally Owned Gages

P

potdar

#11
Certainly there are times when gages should be reference only, or not in calibration at all.

However, the example you cite is different. Your gage may be marked "Reference" but in fact they are calibrated. You just chose a calibration method where you calibrate just prior to use. The rest of the time, the gage is not calibrated/verified.
Yes. In even simpler terms, we define it as

Calibration frequency - Before use.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
C

chasf

#12
Let me clarify what we do with the gage pins.
The sets or individual pins are not calibrated even before use and are not used for manufacturing of customer product.
Small calibrated sets or in some cases calibrated GO/NOGO pins are used for customer product.

If calibration is done just before use it could present some complications of its own.
1) Do the persons calibrating have documented training for gage calibration?
2) How are the calibration records kept and can the gage be traced to the product inspected?
 
F

FLEETWOOD

#13
I'm work in a fairly large company (>3000 people). As we speak, I have a serious issue regarding calibration of tools. I have over 2000 tools out of cal!! When I look at the tools that are out, I find crimpers, meter used by our maintenance people. I find equipment used by our R&D people. I would like to put in place a two tier system. One which calibrates the equipment for production validation. the other which manages the equipment used for reference only. Our QMS will be modified to indicate that the user is responsible to ensure that only calibrated measuring equipment is used for validation of product. I really don't care much about the technician that is doing R & D in the basement. If he really wants to know the right value of a measurement, then he should be using a calibrated tool.

Any help and opinions would be welcome!
 

Stijloor

Staff member
Super Moderator
#14
the other which manages the equipment used for reference only!
Fleetwood,

I am wondering what you will do to assure that the two-tiered (calibration) system does not get messed mixed up. Personally, I do not like: "for reference only." No one has been able to adequately explain to me what that means. I do know that it is often used as an sorry excuse for not having to calibrate the device at some frequency. Sounds confusing to me.

I'm sure my Fellow Covers will chime in on this one.

Stijloor.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#15
Let me clarify what we do with the gage pins.
The sets or individual pins are not calibrated even before use and are not used for manufacturing of customer product.
Small calibrated sets or in some cases calibrated GO/NOGO pins are used for customer product.

If calibration is done just before use it could present some complications of its own.
1) Do the persons calibrating have documented training for gage calibration?
2) How are the calibration records kept and can the gage be traced to the product inspected?

...so, if you do not use the big set of gage pins for product measurement, why do you have a big, expensive set of gage pins?
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#16
I'm work in a fairly large company (>3000 people). As we speak, I have a serious issue regarding calibration of tools. I have over 2000 tools out of cal!! When I look at the tools that are out, I find crimpers, meter used by our maintenance people. I find equipment used by our R&D people. I would like to put in place a two tier system. One which calibrates the equipment for production validation. the other which manages the equipment used for reference only. Our QMS will be modified to indicate that the user is responsible to ensure that only calibrated measuring equipment is used for validation of product. I really don't care much about the technician that is doing R & D in the basement. If he really wants to know the right value of a measurement, then he should be using a calibrated tool.

Any help and opinions would be welcome!

Gosh, what you describe may be a pragmatic attempt to dig out of a hole, but it does not sound like an effective gage management process. I agree with Stijloor - this method will fail frequently.

A key word in your explanation, however, is that you are with a large company. These problems can be common in large companies that are not well organized.

There appears to be much lack of understanding of how gage systems work, or your people would not want to use unverified gages. If they are verified, then they may be close to being in calibration after all.

Not caring what the R&D folks in the basement do, suggests a lot of problems in your organization - dept. vs dept. - or a lack of effectively interacting processes.

It's a tough problem, given the number of gages.

Perhaps the first step would be to remove and isolate many of the gages which are not actually in use. Then, work out a plan to bring the remaining ones into calibration.
 
C

chasf

#17
The big expensive set of gage pins are used in the making fixtures and tooling which is used to produce customer product. The fixtures and tooling is verified or not by inspecting the product with calibrated measuring equipment. Not all companies look the same. It works for us.
 
F

fletch

#18
I would have them bring them home and replace with gages the company bought, or tag them reference only. If you're making tooling they should be in the calibration data base as techincally I would say they are not for verifying final product they are making tooling...that makes product. If the tooling is no good....you'll make scrap...and then there goes the MRB's and CAR's. After a 5why you'll come up with tool maker used gage brought in from home. Personally, I've found employee gages from home are beat up anyways.
 

Stijloor

Staff member
Super Moderator
#19
I would have them bring them home and replace with gages the company bought, or tag them reference only.
Fletch,

What does that mean: "for reference only?" What is the benefit?
How do you ensure that "for reference only" gages can not be used for final inspection?

Stijloor.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#20
The big expensive set of gage pins are used in the making fixtures and tooling which is used to produce customer product. The fixtures and tooling is verified or not by inspecting the product with calibrated measuring equipment. Not all companies look the same. It works for us.
It "works for you" solely because the gages (pins) happen to be accurate. They were verified once upon a time, even if only by the manufacturer. So, they presumably are accurate. (Remember, calibration doesn't make it accurate, it merely verifies whether it is.)

Otherwise, it wouldn't work for you.

However, if it turned out your gage pins were not accurate, the failure to verify/calibrate them would lead to fixtures and tooling which are not right, which could make the product nonconforming - at this point in your explanation, you would finally discover that you have a problem. That would be a costly way to find out the mics your tool guy uses are not correct.

So, does that mean your system is "working for you?" Or, is it simply that at this time, your gages happen to be correct, therefore they don't cause a problem?

My house has never been broken into, so I could presume I don't need locks. The only time I really need locks are those few times when a bad guy happens to be in my yard. But, since I can't predict that, I need to periodically verify my security is working.


I would propose a different angle to this discussion.

I think we need to make our calibration activities more efficient, and need to develop a more effective way. I think we calibrate more than we need to.

Basically, the purpose of calibration is to periodically verify that our gages are capable of giving us readings that are adequately accurate and repeatable for our purposes. But, different measuring systems at different companies have different needs.

Ex 1. I want my watch to tell me the correct time. It is not precisely accurate, but it is adequate for my needs. However, even I want a reasonably accurate result.
2. If I am using it to measure a sports event, there is a greater need for more precise accuracy.
3. And, if I am applying it to NASA or space telescopes, I would need an even higher level of accuracy and precision.

All three levels require the accuracy to be known, but the needed level of accuracy must be determined, and the system must be evaluated to determine that it meets that level of accuracy.
For level 1, I merely calibrate it to the TV weather channel or my cell phone. That is adequate.

For level 2 and 3, a more structured, formal calibration approach would be necessary. We can't shoot a rocket into space, and merely assume the gages were correct.

So, if we understand why we calibrate, and really understand what the requirements specify, then we can fashion a more appropriate approach to calibration.

The issue should not be just whether ISO requires it, but what is best for you. It is necessary that your gage pins are accurate, or it will cost you money and waste. If you bought them with a cert, and they haven't been damaged, they are likely still just as accurate as they were - in other words, still in calibration. So, you can factor that into your planning as to frequency and how extensive the cal needs to be. Maybe, for lab gage pins, just a visual check of condition, if your tolerances are not too precise.

But, limiting calibration to final gages only, and assuming all the rest will eventually lead to problems and waste. Not protecting yourself will lead to problems eventually.

Remember, on Sept. 11, the US government said they "weren't focused on airplane hijackings because we had not had any in 15 years." Not a very effective argument...

I would apply the concept so that the frequency and depth of verification is the variable, not excluding them altogether. If I never check my watch, eventually it will become wrong.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Control Number for Class III and IV devices Canada Medical Device Regulations 0
J Document Control Metrics Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
I Document Control Software Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
T Controlling Expandable Forms in Paper-Based Document Control System Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 10
N ISO 13485 7.3.9 Change control in medical device software ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
C UDI Questions on Control Units Other US Medical Device Regulations 6
A Quality Control Datasheets Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 0
M Control-self assessment Internal Auditing 5
GreatNate Master Control QMS software Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 0
A Prototype control plan FMEA and Control Plans 2
J Records Control - Does each individual record need to be numbered? Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 2
shimonv Document Control Procedure Header Content Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
W FMEA - Current control and occurrence rating FMEA and Control Plans 3
S Which department should prepare the control plan? could you show me a standard regarding to this matter. FMEA and Control Plans 17
G Control Plan & PFMEA Review Procedure? FMEA and Control Plans 1
N What are the software audit and control steps Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 2
A Fabric roll inspection - What type of Control Chart to use? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 2
C Monitoring and Control Instruments RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 3
M ISO14971:2019 - Verification of implementation and effectiveness of risk control ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 3
T Risks arising from control measures vs. ineffective control measures ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 11
J Need Change Control Yes/No Decision Tree Template ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
P IQ, OQ, PQ protocol, and report templates for Distributed Control Systems in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Systems. Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 0
R Risk control measures as per ISO 14971 ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 6
T Linking Control Plans and PFMEA's FMEA and Control Plans 3
L How to add exemption or statement to control of document procedure? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
T PFMEA and Control Plans on legacy product FMEA and Control Plans 5
P IATF 16949 requirement - error-proofing in control plan IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
C 8.5.1.1 Control of Equipment, Tools, and Software Programs - Questions about the extent of control of NC programs AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
Q Version/Revision Control of CAD files Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
earl62 What is the best way to control special characteristics in Control plan? Is it Mandatory to have SPC for IATF 16949? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
I Control Plan (Product/Process specification/ Tolerance) acceptance FMEA and Control Plans 27
Sravan Manchikanti How to interpret '8.3 Control of nonconforming product' for SaMD device while implementing ISO 13485 & MDSAP ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
Z Putting back excluded rows/data points in a control chart Using Minitab Software 0
J Control Plan use on the manufacturing floor FMEA and Control Plans 4
E Change in control plan - Do I have to do sampling? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
D All Dimensions listed on control plan FMEA and Control Plans 10
W Need for current design or process control FMEA and Control Plans 2
Q ISO 9001 8.5.1 - Control of production and service performance ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
A What is the difference between Design Process, Process Design and Design Control? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
A Beginners help with ISO3951-2 Combined control s-method n>5 what is Phi ?? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 0
C Corrective action for failure in documents control ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
B Control chart and sample time Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 1
DuncanGibbons Manufacturing Plan vs Material Specification vs Control Plan Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
J Control chart for huge sample size Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 9
K Contamination Control - Class Is medical devices (Clause 6.4.2 ISO 13485:2016 (E)) ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 12
J 510(k) for a control kit for an external IVD test kit 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
T Assessing Hazard-Related Use Scenarios where control measures exist through standards IEC 62366 - Medical Device Usability Engineering 32
adir88 Documenting Risk Control Option Analysis ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 8
T Design Control Procedures later in the Development Process ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
L AS5553 Clause 3.1.7 e "Control packaging material ..................reused" AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 0

Similar threads

Top Bottom