Article View: bit.listserv.quality
Article #13541Re: Test Equipment Calibration
From: sandy47
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 1994 11:39
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 1994 11:39
63 lines
4500 bytes
4500 bytes
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> I have a question about the calibration of test equipment. Any feedback
> would be greatly appreciated. The situation is this: we calibrate all of
> the test equipment that we use for formal acceptance testing. Most of this
> equipment we own, but some of it we rent or lease. On the equipment we own,
> we keep track of what equipment is used on a specific test. So if, when get
> that piece of equipment re-calibrated, we find that is was out of
> calibration, we can trace back to the tests we performed and determine how or
> if they were affected by the out of calibration condition.
Interesting approach! I've been dealing with Quality System Audits for
over 17 years and I've never had an auditor request how we trace back an
out of calibration condition to a previously performed test...
They WILL you to show what you do if it is found to be out when you take it
in to be calibrated, (i.e. do you change the calibration frequency for
example). Also, how do you deal with a need for repair.
The only thing I've ever heard that even approached this was a case where
the Cal lab of a company which did mechanical equipment for military jet
engines was found to have been out of temp./humidity during the time of
calibration of a set of gages. The required that the engines be pulled from
their planes and checked with new gages.
Since you'll NEVER know when the out-of-cal took place (you assume that it
was good when it left the lab), going back to a previously completed test
seems illogical. Do you assume that it was the equipment rather than the
test item? Do you re-test with a "known good" tester to see if a particular
parameter was really in or out? ...and how do you know that the other
piece of equipment was really good??
A worse case comes with re-test of a failure: we will always accept a bad
unif if a re-test shows it to be "good", but we NEVER re-test a good unit
to see if maybe it was bad!
> the equipment. So far so good. But, when we are done with the rental
> equipment we send it back and if that equipment happened to go out of
> calibration while we were using it we have no way of finding out. The rental
...
> again. So we can't just ask them to let us know if it is found to be out of
> calibration. The only solution we can think of is that we ask for it to be
> calibrated when they send it to us and then again when they receive it back
>
I'd say, don't worry about it. Set up a system that gives you confidence
that you have calibrated equipment in use everytime you test, but assume
that the calibration sticker has meaning.
(We can't 100% test explosive bolts functionally before installation. :-)
Larry McElhiney, QE (ISO Coordinator)
Plantronics, Inc.
Santa Cruz, CA
> Thanks
>
> Darren Kent
> Ph: 306-931-3425
> Fx: 306-933-1486
> Inet: Kent@SEDSystems.ca
>
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<199406070409.VAA29779@si.UCSC.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.dell.com!paladin.american.edu!auvm!cats.ucsc.edu!sandy47Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1159be,8259fd8e044ed7db
X-Google-Attributes: gid1159be,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-06-07 05:07:32 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.dell.com!paladin.american.edu!auvm!cats.ucsc.edu!sandy47
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.quality
Comments: ********************************************************
Comments: * The following "Approved" statement verifies header *
Comments: * information for gateway passage. No approval of the *
Comments: * content is implied. *
Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU *
Comments: ********************************************************
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2931
Approved-By: "James W. Reese" <R505040@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>
Message-ID: <199406070409.VAA29779@si.UCSC.EDU>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 07:39:20 EDT
Sender: TQM in Manufacturing and Service Industries Discussion List
<QUALITY@PUCC.BITNET>
From: sandy47@cats.ucsc.edu
Subject: Re: Test Equipment Calibration
In-Reply-To: <199406070153.SAA29717@cats.ucsc.edu> from "Darren Kent ext: 461"
at Jun 6, 94 06:17:04 pm
Lines: 62