Handling of measurement device calibration for inactive devices

[Quality-Nation]

one of our nonconformities was for calibration timing of measuring devices

I’d still like to know what the nc states, since “timing” isn’t a word used in IATF

 

[Tidge]

I’d still like to know what the nc states, since “timing” isn’t a word used in IATF

Are words like 'frequency' or 'period' used (or implied) in that standard? It isn't as if 'time' is an alien concept in references like NISTIR 6969.

 

[Golfman25]

Are words like 'frequency' or 'period' used (or implied) in that standard? It isn't as if 'time' is an alien concept in references like NISTIR 6969.

Nope. Your just required to have a documented program. My experience, auditors completely loose their minds when it comes to calibration. They are looking for that i that's not dotted and that t that's not crossed. For example, early on we used to have actual dates on our stuff -- say 10/22/23. And if was today, 10/23, all hell would break loose for "out of calibration." We went to months only, to give our QA department some flexibility to get the calibrations done. The other area is the "marketing stickers" the outside services put on surface plates and such -- they want to come back in a year, even though our software says 5 years. If we don't scratch out the sticker date, auditors loose their minds.

OP has a good example. They can set a calibration interval that works for them. Assuming their system said, the interval starts when the item is put into use, they should be good. But noooooooo. We need a finding and all the extra BS work that goes into closing it out.

 

[Quality-Nation]

Are words like 'frequency' or 'period' used (or implied) in that standard? It isn't as if 'time' is an alien concept in references like NISTIR 6969.

Hence my question about the wording of the auditors nc! I’m not interested in discussing the ins and outs of such subjects before ascertaining the veracity of the non-conformity with a requirement.

 

[Ashland78]

I agree with Golfman. Your auditor is looking to write 'something' as a finding to justify his/her existence. I have gauges that have been set as inactive, and if/when they are brought back into use, they are calibrated before being released for general use. That is what my calibration procedure says, and that's what I do. the standard doesn't say how OFTEN you have to calibrate your gauges, doesn't say HOW you do it....just says you have to have a documented system that describes what you do and how you do it.

Yes but that had to be written in his procedure for how they determine that (frequency), I think that is the actual finding.

 

[Quality-Nation]

I think that is the actual finding.

We may never know…

 

[Golfman25]

Yes but that had to be written in his procedure for how they determine that (frequency), I think that is the actual finding.

Since they can determine the frequency, they can also determine the “hold” of inactive gages. If the procedure isn’t 100% clear it seems to me that’s the perfect use of an opportunity for improvement, not a finding.

 

[UncleFester]

I'd like to see the wording of the NC. Was this major or minor?

 

[qusys]

Greetings, all.

I have a question regarding calibration of measuring devices; specifically, how the timing for calibration of inactive devices should be handled.

We recently had our IATF recertification audit, and one of our nonconformities was for calibration timing of measuring devices.

In the system that we use for device management, if a device is inactive, it pauses the calibration clock. In this case, we had a set of gage blocks that were purchased and calibrated in Nov-2020, then set as inactive. They remained inactive until Jan-2023, at which point the system started the 2-year calibration cycle, and gave a next calibration date of Jan-2025. Knowing that it is a 2-year cycle, the auditor dinged us for having the calibration due > 4 years after last calibration.

How do y'all handle this type of scenario? Any assistance is greatly appreciated.

Has this issue impacted the quality of the product? How is the criticality of those tools? If not calibrated over many months of not utilization, was the quality of the measurements impacted?

 

[Bran]

We have several gas flow meters in our system that are purchased as spares and are identified in our system as "Storage" and sit on a shelf until needed. The manufacturer provides a 12mo calibration cert with the new meters. The calibration process has a very long lead time and is done by only the small OEM at one of their locations. Its not possible to calibrate after coming out of storage, as we have no idea when a meter will prematurely fail and need replaced.

When a flow meter is needed, the install date is recorded on the manufacturer calibration cert, and we "start the clock" on the install date, applying our own internal calibration sticker onto the meter with the next calibration due date set at +12mo from the install date. This process is documented in our procedure.

It's not perfect, but our documentation of the install date and calculation of next calibration due date (with the internal procedure documented) has been sufficient to get us through audits.

--

In your example, it sounds like your documentation specifies gage blocks have a 2-year calibration cycle, and your system does not specify anything about calculating the calibration next due date off of the install date. Personally, I think this is a valid finding because you have a gage block in use past your own 2-year calibration frequency requirement.