GIDEP

skidaddle skaduski · 08-30-2012 -- 13:46:35

Hey People, quick question. I work for a 3rd cal house that uses GIDEP procedures. When they use these for commercial work ( non government ) they don't place limited stickers on the equipment. Is this acceptable and can someone give me direct links to where it may say somewhere that any deviation to mfr's specification, is a limited cal?

OlDave · 08-30-2012 -- 14:28:34

Whether that is a limitation or not would depend on what your quality manual states and any agreements between you and your customer.

If I was your customer, I would be royally pissed off if I found out that you were calibrating my equipment to a military procedure that did not conform to the manufacturer's specifications.

1.   I don't know what tolerances are in the procedure you found on GIDEP.
2.   I didn't purchase this instrument through the military supply chain but directly from the manufacturer or a distributer and only then after a careful analysis of the printed specifications in relation to my requirements.
3.   If you put a "fully certified" cal label on my instrument, I expect it to meet the specs the manufacturer claims. If you can't do that then tell me. I probably won't bring you the item again, but at least I won't trash you for lying to me.

skidaddle skaduski · 08-30-2012 -- 15:30:35

Thanks OlDave,

I know this is incorrect and as I explain my case to my employers / co-workers ( most with non metrology backrounds) they just tell me to learn a little more about the business.

I know for fact they don't tell customers that they use GIDEP procedures. I told them, " if you say calibrated to full manufacturer's specs and are using stripped down DoD procedures, then that is not to full MFR specifications". I don't know what the big deal is, what's the harm in just slap'n on a limited sticker?

I guess, back to OP, what I'm asking is, where does it say in ANSI / 17025 / z540, etc... that a limit is, well... a limit? I just want to make my case before these jerks fire me for making a point. *wink wink* I work in a right to work state and I'm sure that I'm correct on this issue. Thanks

USMCPMEL · 08-31-2012 -- 08:54:01

How is a GIDEP procedure a "deviation to mfr's specification"?? First I believe you mean a deviation from mfr's specifications. Second GIPED procedures are based on the manufacturers specifications. If anything GIDEP procedure are more thorugh than the standards "Mfr's specifications" Take a look at the data you get with a 34401A from Agilent then look at what a GIDEP procedure checks...

skidaddle skaduski · 08-31-2012 -- 09:11:39

Then you apparently are the one who does not know what you are talking about. I am not going to explain to you how you are wrong, because you probably won't understand it anyways.

Funny you are part of the problem here. Keep using those GIDEP procedures, and then let me know where you work

ck454ss · 08-31-2012 -- 09:52:11

Quote from: skidaddle skaduski on 08-31-2012 -- 09:11:39
Then you apparently are the one who does not know what you are talking about. I am not going to explain to you how you are wrong, because you probably won't understand it anyways.

Funny you are part of the problem here. Keep using those GIDEP procedures, and then let me know where you work

Yup Ill keep using them. Seems like you think you are the Cal God dont ya.

Please let me know where you work. I really want to make sure I dont ever work at that location. Just sayin..

OlDave · 08-31-2012 -- 12:35:18

First off, I don't know skidaddle, nor do I approve of the tone of his posts.

But I think the point he is trying to make is that at one time the AF cal procedure tolerance tables were written around the standards that were available for usage. That's understood, but in many cases for new, highly accurate equipment, the acquisition of standards lagged behind so the tolerance for the TI was downgraded without any requirement to limit the calibration of the instrument due to lack of standards.

You had to really get down in the dirt and compare the mfg specs to the K procedure specs line by line to catch it. That may not have been an issue with a one dimensional audience, but to use those expanded tolerances for a commercial application could present a problem. That's one reason I am hesitant to use GIDEP procedures without thorough analysis of their tolerance tables.

I don't know if this is still common practice in the AF and/or Navy or not, but it was 15 years ago.

measure · 08-31-2012 -- 13:05:24

Quote from: USMCPMEL on 08-31-2012 -- 08:54:01
How is a GIDEP procedure a "deviation to mfr's specification"?? First I believe you mean a deviation from mfr's specifications. Second GIPED procedures are based on the manufacturers specifications. If anything GIDEP procedure are more thorugh than the standards "Mfr's specifications" Take a look at the data you get with a 34401A from Agilent then look at what a GIDEP procedure checks...

Though your statement about GIDEP procedures may often be the case, it is not an absolute. For example, some time ago, I was reviewing the 33K-series procedure for the Fluke 8502A when I noticed that the specifications were not as stringent as those published by Fluke. Being acquainted with someone from AFMETCAL at the time, I asked why this was the case. The reply I received was that the USAF established their own specifications, based on mission requirements and lab capabilities, and did not necessarily adopt the manufacturer's specifications, though in many cases they did.

CalibratorJ · 08-31-2012 -- 13:28:42

I'm not on GIDEP, sorry, I work for the Army and don't have the need for GIDEP access. Please, please, please tell me GIDEP doesn't have Army TBs and please tell me that you are not using Army TBs for commercial cal without comparing the quoted TI specs to manufacturer's specs AND comparing the quoted standard's specs to mfr specs. Oh, and I really hope you are not calibrating lab standards using Army TBs.

Don't get me wrong, Army TBs are great, for the Army and for Army equipment. I think they are moving to change it and go toward mfr spec cals, but apparently reinventing the wheel is very hard to do.

Personally, I would never, under any circumstances, use any military calibration procedure as the sole reference for a commercial cal unless my customer was 100% aware that each item is only being calibrating to those specifications listed in the procedure and I knew the customer had actually reviewed and UNDERSTOOD the differences between the two (mfr and military specs) OR I was test reporting the entire cal.

Now, using military procedures as a guideline while also using mfrs specs is different...... and if done right is not a bad way to do business, if you know what you are doing, calculate uncertainties, guardband where appropriate, etc.

Just my half a cent, not that anyone asked for it.

OlDave · 08-31-2012 -- 13:51:32

Well I think it's very clear that CalibratorJ, measure and myself all have a fairly clear understanding of the pitfalls of using military procedures for commercial cal. CalibratorJ and measure have clearly identified their observations and you know what? None of us leveled any personal attacks against anyone. Well done guys!

Hoopty · 08-31-2012 -- 16:46:34

Quote from: OlDave on 08-31-2012 -- 13:51:32
Well I think it's very clear that CalibratorJ, measure and myself all have a fairly clear understanding of the pitfalls of using military procedures for commercial cal. CalibratorJ and measure have clearly identified their observations and you know what? None of us leveled any personal attacks against anyone. Well done guys!

Hear hear! I agree w/ OlDave. Please keep it civil folks...

NavyCalMaster · 09-04-2012 -- 18:32:12

I have to agree with being very careful with GIDEP. As some have said, they can be good guidelines along with mfg specs, especially when you are looking for measurement set ups and testing configurations. Mfg's aren't always clear with these, but GIDEP procedures usually are. That said, you always have to compare the GIDEP spec tables to the the mfg's. I pretty much thought that was common practice, even for commercial labs.

skidaddle skaduski · 09-05-2012 -- 10:34:43

I hope that the personal attacks comment was not directed towards me. if so then please show me in this particular thread where that was the case

John Treekiller · 09-05-2012 -- 10:46:02

Quote from: skidaddle skaduski on 08-31-2012 -- 09:11:39
Then you apparently are the one who does not know what you are talking about. I am not going to explain to you how you are wrong, because you probably won't understand it anyways.

Funny you are part of the problem here. Keep using those GIDEP procedures, and then let me know where you work

That's in this thread, a lot more in other threads.

measure · 09-05-2012 -- 15:39:12

Quote from: skidaddle skaduski on 08-31-2012 -- 09:11:39
Then you apparently are the one who does not know what you are talking about. I am not going to explain to you how you are wrong, because you probably won't understand it anyways.

Funny you are part of the problem here. Keep using those GIDEP procedures, and then let me know where you work

ss, I suspect that you may feel that the above was not a personal attack. For YOUR benefit, let's assume it wasn't. The manner you chose to make your point, however, was rude, tactless, and inconsiderate to other members on this forum, many of which, I'm sure, have a deeper background than yours.

Nobody minds constructive criticism, when it is delivered respectfully. I hope you think this is reasonable as well. Perhaps your approach is why some responses thus far may have seemed less than amicable.