The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  Measurement, Test and Calibration
  4.10.6.5 Interpretation

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   4.10.6.5 Interpretation
Art Kitkowski
unregistered
posted 24 February 2000 12:13 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Paraphrased "The laboratory shall use calibration methods, which are appropriate for the calibration it undertakes, preferably the current issue of those published as international, regional, or national standards".

Our in-house cal labs perform cal or simple instruments such as calipers, DVM, thermocouples, digital thermometers,etc. The cal procedures are documented and follow the cal procedures recommended by the O.E.M. of the articles. We considers this sufficient to meet the requirements of 4.10.6.5.

A recent audit interpreted that the cal procedures (ignored the word preferably)must be published international, etc. standards. We tried to find these standards for some simple cals, on the web, etc. and could not. Any thoughts on the interpretation and any ideas where standards for cal can be found?

IP: Logged

Jerry Eldred
Forum Wizard

Posts: 136
From:
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 24 February 2000 01:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jerry Eldred   Click Here to Email Jerry Eldred     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think if your calibration procedures cover the details from Recommended Practices from the National Conference of Standards Laboratories, it would be difficult for any auditor to find a problem. I would recommend you review ISO 10012 and NCSL Recommended Practices for calibration procedures. My guess, from reviewing 4.10.6.5, is that it is referencing 4.11. The wording is overly vague in that. If you go to 4.11.2, and refer to the note at the end of that, NOTE 18, it references ISO 10012. In ISO 10012, para 4.7, there are a few paragraphs. THE NCSL recommended practices are very detailed, and are considered a best practice for how to write calibration procedures.

I must apologize, as nearly all of my library is packed for a forthcoming office move, or I could give you a quote from the recomended practice. The web address for the NCSL is, I believe www.ncsl-hq.org. I'll have to check to be sure.

Your procedures must cover some basics:

1. Document control/revision control
2. List of the measurement standards to be used
3. Detail of each measurement uncertainty for each calibrated parameter on the measurement standard.
4. Detail of each tolerance limit for all calibrated parameters of the device to be calibrated
5. Step by step instructions for all of the process steps
6. Environmental requirements, warm up requirements for all equipment

One note of caution is that a manufacturer's adjustment procedure is not acceptable. There must be instructions for making a set of measurements prior to making adjustments to verify the unit was received in or out of manufacturer's specified tolerances.

A second note of caution is that the procedure must be specific enough that it is unambiguous as to specifically what measurement standards may be used.

For example, on a DVM, a meter calibrator is not sufficient. For a specific model DVM, a specific model meter calibrator that may be used.

I have written in the past, generic procedures for DVMs. In that procedure, I was very specific about what models of meter calibrator could be used. The reason for this is for example, that if a Fluke 5100B calibrator is the meter calibrator in the lab, if the procedure just says meter calibrator, there is a loophole which may allow a technician to unintentionally use that meter calibrator for a meter of too high accuracy.

I also deliberately made a statement in all of my procedures that the 4:1 test uncertainty ratio must be maintained, I even documented in the procedure what the actual ratio was in some instances where it could make a difference.

A good resource for well written procedures (if you do government contract work) is GIDEP (Gov't Industry Data Exchange Program).

I don't know if I have covered the right information to help in your resolution. Please let me know if I can help further.

------------------

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!