For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification - Tape Measures for cutting bar stock

[Bob Ablondi]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification - Tape Measures for cutting bar st

Isn't tape measures considered a attridute device? If so doesn't the ISO 17025 classify their accuracy based on the manufacturer's stated accurcy providing they are correctly used?

 

[John Martinez]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification - Tape Measures for cutting bar st

From previous posts in this thread I got the impression that we could justify not having calibration with a risk analysis. Your response better explained explained what i was getting hung up with.

So now I'm a little confused, I see risk analysis as a reasonable method to justify not calibrating since the likelyhood that a tape measure would be able to hold our 0.5" tolerance with end play and any sort or warping.
But, I also am thinking about:

Can anyone shed some light on this situation?

Thanks!

If your risk analysis does not include what can happen, as Jane stated, then your risk analysis would be flawed. Keep in mind that risk analysis should be done with a cross functional team as any one person can not think of everything.

My apologies if we confused you regarding a risk analysis.

There is a bunch of good info in this post alone. Take all of it to a cross functional team and then consider what is best for your organization...cost, vs risk, vs. benefit, IN LIGHT OF YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION.

 

[DrM2u]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification - Tape Measures for cutting bar st

Isn't tape measures considered a attridute device? If so doesn't the ISO 17025 classify their accuracy based on the manufacturer's stated accurcy providing they are correctly used?

A tape measure is a variable gage, it is not an attribute (GO/NOGO or PASS/FAIL)gage.

I am not sure what ISO 17025 states but a certificate from the manufacturer (OEM) is perfectly acceptable. There is inspection equipment that can be verified/calibrated only by the manufacturers (usually specialized equipment like balancers, transducers and others) and there is equipment that can also be verified/calibrated by certified sources (i.e. calipers, gage blocks, etc). Initial certification from the manufacturer is perfectly acceptable in lieu of calibration but it does not hurt to verify the equipment if necessary, feasible, affordable or whatever other criteria you might employ.

 

[Caster]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification

I'd like to see the term "for reference only" removed from the quality profession.

Along with "Not Controlled"

And "because it's an ISO requirement"

And "the registrar said we had to do it that way"

This might become another thread

 

[Stijloor]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification

Along with "Not Controlled"

And "because it's an ISO requirement"

And "the registrar said we had to do it that way"

This might become another thread

Stijloor.

 

[John Martinez]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification

Along with "Not Controlled"

And "because it's an ISO requirement"

And "the registrar said we had to do it that way"

This might become another thread

Ok, I'll start it.

 

[JaneB]

Re: For Reference Only or Calibration/Verification - Tape Measures for cutting bar st

If your risk analysis does not include what can happen, as Jane stated, then your risk analysis would be flawed. Keep in mind that risk analysis should be done with a cross functional team as any one person can not think of everything.

My apologies if we confused you regarding a risk analysis.

There is a bunch of good info in this post alone. Take all of it to a cross functional team and then consider what is best for your organization...cost, vs risk, vs. benefit, IN LIGHT OF YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION.

Yes, good advice. .

if it's been rationally determined that the probability of gage error is acceptably low, calibration would be wasteful. That's why the standard calls for calibration "when necessary to ensure valid results." If calibration/verification isn't necessary to ensure valid results, it shouldn't be done.

More good advice, that I also agree with.

To summarise:
1. Determine if you need to do it. (But in making that decision, don't just focus on final product characteristics only. Using analysis of risks is one good way to help make the decision.)

2. If you decide you don't need it, don't do it. But make sure you have a rational explanation for why.
If you do need to do it, have a practical way of doing it.

Sorry for any confusion.