TS16949 - No "For Reference Only" Gages allowed?

[Stijloor]

Sorry, so 45+ years experience has taught you to make assumptions about other people’s processes and procedures?

Nope, working as a trainer, consultant, and auditor..

Have a nice day.

Stijloor.

 

[The Specialist]

Nope, working as a trainer, consultant, and auditor..

Have a nice day.

Stijloor.

Please, don't be offended by my question. I was merely trying to make a firm point that;

One cannot assume that the reason for tagging a device with 'for reference only' is for the purpose of "cynically" trying to (what?...Fool) auditors!

I do not wish to undermine your experience, however; in my experience terms such as 'for reference only' or 'for information only' are widely used for the reasons I have already given in this thread and NOT to try to fool anybody.
As an example; this was commonly used as a categorisation of devices/instruments at the largest pharmaceutical company in the world. Companies such-as this do not conduct themselves in the manner being suggested.

Whist I am sorry if you feel I have questioned your experience with my previous post...
Is my point about assumption not valid?


Further to this is this point not also valid?:


There is no regulation that states ‘thou must not categorise instruments/measurement devices as reference only’.

If the organisation has a robust and clear method/procedure for handling/categorising instruments and devices then they are well within their rights to label them as they wish; providing that it is clear as to the intended use and categorisation of the instrument.


The only thing that matters, IMO, is that those instruments that require calibration have been identified and scheduled for routine calibration/verification. AND that this decision (to calibrate, or not) was made following proper impact/criticality/risk assessment.

Beyond this; why does anyone care how instruments are categorised or labelled??

 

[bobdoering]

Beyond this; why does anyone care how instruments are categorized or labeled??

So that they are only used for their intended purpose. It would be analogous to asking "Why does product have to be labeled with an indication of what condition the product is in?" - again, so that it is used for its intended purpose - scrap isn't shipped and WIP goes through all of its intended steps. It is purely communication to avoid error and its associated costs and overhead.

I mentioned a few valid reasons, also, for using the "for reference only". They just have nothing to do with product verification and process control. They are more closely aligned to using gage blocks as door stops after they have been decommissioned...

 

[bobdoering]

I don't know why meeting a standards requirements and optimization should or shouldn't be divergent. I was framing my question to avoid getting wrapped up in a philosophical debate on what is optimal.

I think the intent of the standard is to encourage you to do what is optimal without giving step-by-step instructions on how to do so.

 

[CommonSense - 2011]

I never would have though a topic about "for reference only" would have more drama and passion than a Spanish soap opera! I had to give my two cents.

I fall into the crowd that thinks that "reference only" labeling is not only acceptable, and has it's place, but that it's actually a good thing to have to eliminate the possibility that someone will pick up a gauge that IS NOT AND WAS NEVER intended to validate CRITICAL MEASUREMENTS being used for that very purpose.

I'll explain further. In my plant, we have to verify part dimensions are conforming to customer requirements. For this, we use nicer, calibrated equipment as a matter of course, ALWAYS.

We also have routine tooling fitment changes, and produce in house tools that are not held to the same criticality as customer requirements, but all the same, need a level of accuracy. For these types of measurements, we have "reference only" equipment. I really don't want to send my 12" calibrated Mitutoyo calipers out for a romp in the machine shop to measure the length of a machine shaft being built.

It's not as if our "reference only" equipment isn't ever verified for it's accuracy, but I do not want to take the time to add it to my calibrated equipment since it's intended purpose is as a shop tool, and as such, is subject to more loss and breakage than devices that don't leave the QC room.

I think it's rather brash to assume that the use of "reference only" is intended to get out of calibrating, or fool an auditor. The standards are written how they are because every shop situation is different, and they are written with a good faith intention. If certain business owners are using "reference only" as a way around the standard, I can only imagine their entire QMS will reek of a company that is only going through the motions, and has no interest in using the standard to their benefit, or that of their customers.

I honestly hope that I have provided a non-unique situation that explains why "reference only" would be used, and why it exists to help PREVENT non-conforming product from getting through. Just my opinion and practices.

 

[BradM]

I never would have though a topic about "for reference only" would have more drama and passion than a Spanish soap opera!

I love it! And you know what's even worse, there are probably no less than three threads (long-running ones at that) on this very subject in addition to this one.

I guess we're very passionate about quality here.

 

[pcsmith]

Well, we received our certificate. The FRO subject never came up during audit as far as I'm aware - not to say it won't arise in future audits.

Now that this is done, everyone is focused on new issues so my mission is now bring everyone back to this subject to determine permanent solution.

Either way, I got a ton of OT and some new standard equipment that I wanted, so it wasn't an entirely useless evolution.

Thanks for everyone's input - it has not been forgotten nor useless discussion. This drama beat Days of Our Lives any day!

 

[Brizilla]

I'll have to fall in line with CommonSense on this one.
Lots of drama!

In my 30 years in Mfg. mostly in machine shop job shop environments no company I ever worked for used "For Reference Only" to avoid calibration standards or policies. The idea is kinda ridiculous.

On the other hand they would use "For Reference Only" on rough machining gages for castings, on stock cut off measuring, & sheet metal fabrication.

As Jim Wynne said, alot stems on the FRO dims on lots of drawings.

 

[QA179Chief]

I have reference only gages that are used to determine pass / fail criteria on the manufacturing floor. These reference only gages have pass / fail calibrated standards attached to them and before use the reference gages must be checked to the traceable calibrated standard. This is questioned, but has passed due to the calibrated pass/fail standards attached.

Otherwise, a reference only gage used for pass/fail criteria will be a finding.

 

[TamTom]

Re: TS16949 No "For Reference Only" allowed

Show me the shall ...did they give the refrence (in TS16949) for that statement?

ON another note, do not let your company bullied in the whims of auditors. Next year they will state that they will not accept white calibration tags and only blue will be accepted.

No its not the taps, everything you calibrate must also fit in the MSA!!

So you start to make MSA for al these instruments!! If you really masure prodcut controlls with them or not.

Against the devices going home, are to methods helping:
1. You bind the device to a person, you name it and if it got lost are is damaged every two days, the people have to pay for them.

2. make a person from the team responsible for the calibration, so he takes the devices internally and bring them in for calibration, these measuring device responisble person is offical named and has a list, not you. So he could be blamed, that is better than the "Quality" guy.

Greetings

TamTom