ILC/PT for 25% of the testing listed in their lab scope for Type A Tests

[Ken K]

Proficiency TEsting

It is recommended that accredited labs perform ILC/PT for 25% of the testing listed in their lab scope per year. My question is how do you handle this for Type A tests?

Category A Testing Defined

Qualitative tests are test for which there are no quantitative results.

For example:

-- Go-no go tests.
-- Tests where results are a comparison form a reference plaque; such as, Microstructure ASTM A247, Degree of Blistering ASTM A247, Inclusion Content ASTM E45
-- Tests where the result is numerically rated by judgment; such as, Tape Adhesion ASTM D3359.
-- Tests that are exposure or environmental simulation only; such as, Salt Spray ASTM B117, Xenon Arc SAE J1885 and J1960, Environmental Cycles GM 9505P.

Almost 60% of the tests listed in our scope are category A.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[tomvehoski]

I had a similar situation with a scale calibration company. Our situation was that it was not possible to send a scale to multiple companies since calibration could be altered in shipping. It was also not acceptable to my client to have his competitors come into his shop to do a test on site.

I can't remember if the intrepretation came from LAB or NIST, but basically I was told that an independent audit by a qualified person witnessing the test in question can be considered a proficiency test. Our 3rd party ISO 17025 auditor fulfilled this requirement when he performed the certification audit. He was not sure if he could accept that until I showed him my correspondence e-mails. I will see if I can dig up my records if you think this will help.

Tom

 

[Graeme]

Follow the numbers?

Ken K said:
It is recommended that accredited labs perform ILC/PT for 25% of the testing listed in their lab scope per year. My question is how do you handle this for Type A tests? ... Qualitative tests are test for which there are no quantitative results.

Ken,

Many of the tests you mention are based on quantitative values, even if the testing lab does not measure or report the numbers directly. For example, of the tests I am directly familiar with,

• Go/no-go tests often use a gage that must meet dimensional specifications.
• Enviromental effects tests are based on actual measurements of temperature, relative humidity, absolute air pressure, water salinity or other factors.

A question for you and the assembled gurus is,
IF a testing lab performs the base physical, dimensional or electronic measurements AND is accredited in those measurement areas, THEN can they say that the derived qualitative tests and results are accredited?

For example, assume that a testing lab routinely makes measurements of temperature using a PRT sensor, and relative humidity using a chilled-mirror standard. Also assume that the lab is accredited in those two areas over some range of values, and participates in proficiency tests of those parameters. My question is asking, I think, is that accreditation still valid when the measurements are made inside a temperature-humidity test chamber, with the measurement results used as immediate feedback to modulate the operation of that chamber? If not, then what is the key difference?

If such a scenario would be acceptable then the course of action seems to be to obtain proficiency tests and become accredited in the actual measurement parameters that form the foundation of the qualitative tests. Of course, this still would not work for some things, especially those that rely on judgement and/or human comparison to a visual (or other) reference artifact.

 

[Ken K]

Thanks for your responses. I guess I need to explain the situation a little more.

We will be required to participate in two major ILC/PT per year, and preferably 25% of our scope per year. The major's I have no problem with.

My problem is how to do ILC/PT with a Hot Odor test such as
SAE J1351 for example. And how would you judge if the results were acceptable for a PT?

 

[Graeme]

Ken K said:
My problem is how to do ILC/PT with a Hot Odor test such as
SAE J1351 for example. And how would you judge if the results were acceptable for a PT?

Ken,

My previous response was based on the examples in your list that I am familiar with. While I have smelled some hot odors (if you are driving on I-285 at I-675 during the summer ...pheww!) I am not at all familiar with the SAE spec.

Have you tried benchmarking oustide your industry for ideas? Odor is an important characteristic of many cosmetics, for example. Also, there must be some medical protocols involving odor. Possible these or other areas coud give some ideas ...

Graeme
------------------
Clueless in Atlanta