Nonconformance - Not meeting Ford requirements for TS Certification

[Howard Atkins]

Andy, as I mentioned already, the protocol for the certification surveillance cycle does not require every aspect of a QMS to be audited each and every audit. So, it is TOTALLY possible that a few processes of a QMS only get audited every 2 or 3 years. This is what ISO 17021 states: To assume the auditor is wrong in reporting an NC 2 years old is rushing to judgement, in my opinion.

PS Covegratulations on your 15,000 karma points. Well deserved.

There is a requirement though to audit Internal Audits every audit.

If a NC is not verifiable during a surveillance audit it should be a major but this should havve been done in 2010.

Throwing it out at the closing meeting is.in my mind the unprofessional issue

 

[Sidney Vianna]

There is a requirement though to audit Internal Audits every audit.

I fail to see what is the correlation here.

If a NC is not verifiable during a surveillance audit it should be a major but this should havve been done in 2010.

I "assume" you mean to state that a CORRECTIVE ACTION that is not implemented nor effective, when followed up during the subsequent surveillance audit should be escalated to a major. Even if that is your point, I fail to see the correlation with the issue at hand.

The OP apparently believes that an external auditor should limit him/herself to audit issues posterior to the previous audit. As I have explained already (twice) in this thread, that expectation is not correct nor supported by any audit protocol or standard, such as ISO 19011, AS9101D, etc.