Hjilling, I'm not doubting you, is there something, somewhere making this the rule? Because I'm not the one who draws up the scope, I would have to have proof when I approach them that draw it up, to change it. Thanks for the heads up.
The gages would be mics, calipers, laser micrometers, depth gages, webster hardness testers.
It is a fair question, with an adequte answer, I hope. The standard is somewhat vague. So we have to apply logic.
The purpose of a Lab Scope is not to pass an audit.
The purpose of a Lab Scope is to identify the tests we have determined we are competent to perform, the equipment we will use, and the specs or instruction we will follow (TS std, pg 3, defintion #3.1.5).
So, "Dimensional Checks" is a very generic description of a test. Which equipment will we use? I can use a mic, but not a CMM. Does that matter? Of course. A CMM is accurate to several magnitudes over a mic or caliper. It is not the same thing! So, why would we list it as the "same thing?"
A dimensional check, with a CMM, is one thing. A dimensional check with a mic is another. A dimensional check with a dial indicator, or thread gage, or depth mic, are different. If they are different, why would we list them together? Would 3 extra rows on the scope document cost us more? Why are we doing the scope in the first place? To define the tests we are capable of. The more detail we provide, the useful the scope becomes.
I propose, consistent with ISO practices, that only like, common things should be combined. Different things should be put on different lines. Otherwise, the scope loses any meaning.
For example:
Tests - Using equipment - to relevant specs...would be completely meaningless. Thus, the further I can get from there, the better.
That's the best I can do. Hope it helps...
It seems rather simple and obvious, or logical, to my perspective.
