Jim, why measure anything if you don't have valid results?
If I'm measuring something with a linear scale, and the results produced are valid (i.e., there's no evidence that lack of calibration has ever resulted in anything bad happening), it's wasteful to do calibration and it's
not required by the standard.
And how can you call the measurement valid if the measuremnet device may be bad/defective.
How can you call the measurement valid if a calibrated device is out of tolerance and no one knows it? The act of calibration, in and of itself, doesn't ensure valid results.
And how can you say that the measurememt device is not bad/defective if it isn't calibrated or verified?
See above. When something measured is found to be perilously close to a specification limit, no one should assume that the measurement is accurate, regardless of the calibration status of the device, and I mean even if the thing was calibrated an hour ago. The verification process should include verifying the device, (or use of another device of known accuracy) or the method or the operator, or all three.
The problem is that we find ourselves in this position--having to justify compliance with the standard--because too many people allow auditors to more or less arbitrarily decide what's necessary to ensure valid results and just calibrating everything in sight to avoid trouble. Much calibration is done not to avoid trouble with the product, but to avoid trouble with myopic auditors.
