|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
 The New Elsmar Cove Forums
 QS-9000
 More 4.10.6 Supplier Lab Requirements
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: More 4.10.6 Supplier Lab Requirements |
|
Joe Ptak Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 4 |
posted 07 January 1999 04:51 PM
   
Thanks Dan for posting the AIAG link, that helps to clear things up a little. Additionally, I recently attended a 3rd edition upgrade seminar and was advised that 4.10.6 is concerned about labs that do product development, failure analysis, specialized tests that require lab techs, or in other words, tests that are clearly OFF-LINE and not a normal function of in-process testing. And so, I have another applicability question for the board. We are a metal stamper and we perform traditional in-process dimensional tests by the operator and a QC auditor, also rockwell tests, plating thickness tests, etc. Pretty basic stuff. We also have a CMM which we use to perform more complex dimensionsal testing and calibration services. It is our opinion that the CMM is really the only equipment performing "tests" that would need to be covered by 4.10.6, all the other are in-process tests. Am I interpreting all of this info correctly or should our scope be expanded to cover other areas? Any info would be greatly appreciated. IP: Logged |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 08 January 1999 08:28 AM
This is another QS gray area to me. I think there is some merit to the opinion that this requirement applies only to off-line lab tests. However, unless my eyes deceive me (which happens all too often), I don't see this in the text. We have, what I consider, in-line lab tests that operate on a sampling basis. IMHO, this requirement applies to those tests. Off-line, to me, does not just include physical location of the lab facility, but also that production is not necessarily waiting for the results to allow the product to proceed to the next step. IP: Logged |
|
Bryon C Simmons Forum Contributor Posts: 65 |
posted 09 January 1999 08:00 AM
Gotta agree with Roger on this one...isnt your rockwell testing (which I have some limited experience with)a form of failure analysis? It surely is non-destructive testing....which is gonna fall into the 4.10.6 thing. I think you will have a hard time convincing your registrar that your testing scope falls outside the requirement as it is stated. My advice is to keep it simple, and be pragmatic about it.... Good luck IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
