ISO/TS16949 Internal Calibration Lab need to include Production Equipments

[AndyN]

The rationale that I used to construct my example scope was to describe the capabilities and capacity of the (dimensional) inspection function.

In a way, I tried to 'picture' a framework within which the dimensional inspection could be performed, from the lower end (micrometer) to the largest CMM 'cube' and then describe the accuracy/precision.

The other tests are simply the industry standard tests and calibrations, similarly.

Helmut is correct when he says that the scope isn't for passing the audit, but it is to be used in the APQP process to plan any testing/inspections/etc. which might fall outside of the lab's capabilities, for new products. Scopes should be read by someone!

Just a thought!

 

[Helmut Jilling]

The rationale that I used to construct my example scope was to describe the capabilities and capacity of the (dimensional) inspection function.

In a way, I tried to 'picture' a framework within which the dimensional inspection could be performed, from the lower end (micrometer) to the largest CMM 'cube' and then describe the accuracy/precision.

The other tests are simply the industry standard tests and calibrations, similarly.

Helmut is correct when he says that the scope isn't for passing the audit, but it is to be used in the APQP process to plan any testing/inspections/etc. which might fall outside of the lab's capabilities, for new products. Scopes should be read by someone!

Just a thought!

The primary problem I had was that the level of resolution for a caliper is far less than that of a CMM. It is essentially a different activity, a different test.

However, I love the format!

PS: don't forget to send me your email address, per my PM...

 

[riograndeguy]

Would it matter at all that we only have 2 "dimensions" that we are checking, outside diameter and wall,? as this is tubing. I'm assuming that's the reasoning behind the sparse wording.

 

[Barahir]

Would it matter at all that we only have 2 "dimensions" that we are checking, outside diameter and wall,? as this is tubing. I'm assuming that's the reasoning behind the sparse wording.

I think it has more to do with the preference of the author(s) than on anything else. My company also makes tubing (ERW steel) and our lab scope for calibration only seems to be marginally more detailed than yours:

CALIBRATION
In house dimensional calibration shall be done in accordance with Work Instruction WI-QAL-003 and Standard Procedure SP-QAL-03, and shall use the following standards as a reference:

ISO/IEC Guide 25

Masters used are:

Micrometers
Length Standards
Gage Blocks
​

 

[Ken K]

I think it has more to do with the preference of the author(s) than on anything else. My company also makes tubing (ERW steel) and our lab scope for calibration only seems to be marginally more detailed than yours:

CALIBRATION
In house dimensional calibration shall be done in accordance with Work Instruction WI-QAL-003 and Standard Procedure SP-QAL-03, and shall use the following standards as a reference:

ISO/IEC Guide 25

Masters used are:

Micrometers
Length Standards
Gage Blocks
​

Couple of things Barahir. You really need to update this - Guide 25 is long gone.

Also, don't you think it would be beneficial to also list the #'s of your masters.

 

[Barahir]

Couple of things Barahir. You really need to update this - Guide 25 is long gone.

Also, don't you think it would be beneficial to also list the #'s of your masters.

Thanks, will update for the Guide 25 thing. I noticed another part of the scope that talks about Hardness Testing and we moved our Hardness Tester outside of our company a while back (most of our testing is done by an on-site A2LA lab we started as a completely separate sister company) so the Scope is in need of update again anyway.

To answer your other question, I don't think it would be beneficial to list the #'s of our masters on the Lab Scope. Since they are already on the list of controlled measuring equipment why would I need the redundancy? If I have a master go out of service and have to buy a replacement, I would then need to do a revision level change on my laboratory scope. Which is unecessary because the intent of the scope does not change just because I replaced a set of gage blocks - I'm still performing dimensional calibrations with gage blocks aren't I?

 

[niklas]

Hi there,
I did the same, one list for all equpiment.
I have also made the list more simple - put equipment in to groups (families) and then in the PPAP just wright what ID no the euqipment has wich we use for measuring.
I think you need to do it as simple as possible.

//Niklas