What is the interpretation on "equivalent" National Standards? I belive that ISO10012, ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994, or MIL-STD-45662A applies. I am aware that MIL-STD has been superceded, but it doesn't mean obsoleted does it?
OK - now. By "equivalent" National Standards I assume you mean of calibration standards, correct?
If so, they are just asking that you present a reasoning for the standard you use. Obviously NIST has standards for just about everything. But theoretically if you came up with a measurement of a previously undefined 'aspect' or 'quality' YOU could define the standard. Units of length, light, mass, etc. are all pretty much taken, by the way...
You can use any standard you like - even a discontinued or obsoleted standard - as long as your system supports it (as long as it is documented) and 45662A is no exception.
Thank you for the input. I would think that an obsolete standard would still apply. In fact, the "new" standards state that for comparison, review 45662A!
At any rate, the term "National equivalent" is a little ambiguous and the auditor we use wasn't too clear about whether 45662A was "OK". I wanted to pose a justification discussion, but I wanted some feedback from someone else before I firmly stood my ground. Thanks for the help!
The ISO 10012 is not taking new posts so I will post this here. How do I put measurement uncertainty into a procedure? Just exactly what would be the definition and do I have to prove and document the uncertainty on every gage?
Back to the subject - OK - by standards you mean specification type stuff as opposed to measurement standards. I sorta touched on that in the last sentence of my response above but didn't fully understand the question...
You ask yourself the intent of what you're doing (eg. Calibration). The bottom line intent it to ensure your measurement system (QS9000 is now high on the MSA band wagon) is calibrated to a 'standard' so that we all measure the same inch. Method of measurement becomes more important with MSA (as an element - and there are many 'elements' of MSA).
You ask yourself the intent of what you're doing (eg. Calibration) and the intent is to have a defined system with certain characteristics of the system as 'required' and defined by a'spec' (if you will). In this case we have ISO10012, ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994, and MIL-STD-45662A. They each provide some guidelines and have similar, and in same cases the exact same, requirements. They each provide requirements which cause the system to meet the root intent.
I'm going to assume the auditor had simply never had MIL-STD-45662A in his past experience which explains why the auditor was 'fuzzy' about it. This is not unusual.
The last issue is the 'equivalent international standard' where the US has a calibration spec (the old MIL-STD-45662A for example) and say a Brazilian 'equivalent' (I have no idea what Brazil has). As long as they each meet the 'intent', you can use either - technically. Another example that may be closer to home is the ISO9001 standard where it is the same in all countries as far as text goes but is (typically) renamed or renumbered. If you look at ISO9001 in the US it is labeled ANSI/ISO/ASQC Q9001-1994. Canada names it something different. But - they are 'equivalent' standards. So you can use either one as they are, name asides, the same.
Do note that in the QS series, QS is a customer requirement and their MSA (used as an example herein) requirements are beyond 45662A requirements so there is not a match there.
[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 09-30-98).]
Maybe a very small point, but MIL-STD-45662 was "canceled" in February 1995, and inactive for new design after December 1994. The two "national" equivalents for calibration systems are ISO 10012-1 and ANSI/NCSL Z540-1. Unless you are running a calibration service, I'd recommend staying away from that one. You could also consider the NVLAP from NIST, which is based on ISO Guide 25. Again, that's really meant for cal service companies. IMHO, base your cal syatem on the ISO 10012-1.