I've about had it. 90% of the people I work with know my opinion (since I've taken no means to hide my ID) so I'm okay with calling BULLsh!t here.
Our QA wants to bust me on not putting in the ID for the DMM used to verify a 600ohm load...b/c it was spec'ed...even though it's a pre-lim.
So what is YOUR labs policy on this? If it's a pre-lim does it matter? Do we need to enter the DMM used during 33-1-32 as a std? How about the T&H recorder? What about items used to standardize other stds? Like the 752 divider or the self cal of the 720...
Casey,
As long as I was at Nellis, it was their policy to write up the technician for that same exact reason. If it affected traceability and it wasn't entered in PAMS, then you got a major. That also included items used for standardization as well. It was not so bad as to include the DMM for 33-1-32 or the chart recorders. Those were implied I guess.
If you think about it though, standardizing does serve an important function. In most cases, you are transferring the accuracy of the items used to standardize directly to the item you are standardizing. For that reason, it does make sense to me that they are included in your PAMS report.
Also, you can think about it this way. What if you didn't do those pre-lims? Would that affect your calibration? Sure it would. That's why they're required. And any QA or AFMETCAL auditor would certainly write you up if you didn't. So, the only way you can document (or trace) it, would be to enter the ID# of your equipment in PAMS.
Bottom line for me was ... I learned to cover my ass and load anything that I used with an ID# on it when I was done. That included NCR and NPC items too. My philosophy was, that they couldn't write me up for having too many standards entered.
Now, as for the loads and their specs, I do have a problem there. Of course I understand why you wouldn't want to use a 55 ohm load when 50 ohms is spec'd, but how do we check those loads out? Using a DC source from a DMM. And what do we normally check using a load? Usually some AC or RF signal, which will definitely affect your impedance! Not very reliable if you ask me.
I hope this helps.
Jesse
I'm with Hoopty, I even list NCR and NPC items since they have ID#'s. However 2014, 3.8.4 clearly states that TMDE used for prelim steps that is not listed as a standard in the cal pro does not require listing.
Casey,
TO 00-20-14 para 3.8.4 provides guidance for this. I have not seen or heard of MLC documenting nonconformities (quality or process) for this type of issue as long as it follows para. 3.8.4. We do not document nonconformities for this type issue (unless the DMM was listed in section 2 of the k-procedure) here at our lab.
I agree with Jesse, you can never get written up for listing too many standards, however, in your case I don't believe a nonconformity is warranted...as long as it follows TO 00-20-14 para. 3.8.4.
What k-procedure were you using?
I don't guess I ever saw that change to 3.8.4... pretty much says that it's not a nonconformity though.
If it has a accuracy listed in Equipment Requirements, you will need to have it reflected in labmet. At least that's how it is here.
for 33-1-32 I never listed that. I believe the Feltwell was starting us using the T&H id before I left if you weren't within so many feet of it or right next to it where it would be obvious. Though with an electronic monitoring system as some labs have its not very relevent in my opinion since the temps are electronically logged. If you were just simply checking to see if you had picked a 600 plus or minus 100 ohm termination there is no need to enter it. My understanding is you can grab anything long as its less than 1 M and use it since its not spec'd in the K-pro. It may have been 600 at time of purchase but its not now who cares. Common sense comes into play on that but in your case. If it were something like 33k8-4-14-1 where you are required to use a basic 50 ohm term on a 87 to 3320(?) frequency cal you could verify it as a 50 ohm with the TI if you had already done resistance.
enough babble from me. I've not looked at the "bible" in over 2 years. Though I've downloaded it once or twice since I've gotten out because its a public doc.
I was calibrating a 204C and it was the 600ohm load. Basically I got a "B type" b/c the QA wanted it that way. The policy that is being "implemented" is that if it's the part of the pre-lims it doesn't matter. Basically...we're applying 20-14. If it was listed in Table 2 I would've entered it, but I didn't think it was necessary.
If you listed the 3455A as a standard, what is to say that is not the DMM that you used to verify the load? It has the accuracy to adequately measure the 600 ohm load to +/-1%. What would cause the QA to question whether a different DMM was used to measure the load, you had adequate standards listed to ensure traceability (as he was looking at it). Sounds like he was just looking for dirt. Looks like bullsh!t, smells like bullsh!t...my bullsh!t detector is pegged...and I'm a QA.
I didn't include the 3458 in the stds block. It's never mattered before. It seems like the issue with the QA is being addressed. Apparently this person is burning bridges across the lab.
Personally, I think the write-up you got is BS. I think step 3. 8. 4 is incorrect also. . . the intent of entering STANDARDS into PAMS is to enter STANDARDS, not ALL TMDE. Not every piece of TMDE is a standard. A standard is the item that you transfer accuracy from directly to your test instrument. A volt stand to a voltmeter, for example. Just because other TMDE is used in that process, just at T&H recorder, ohmmeter, etc. does not make them standards and I would not write that up as a major.
our lab wrote it into the QM so that we would have to enter the ID of ther meter.
Yeah, I think a lot of labs started doing that to "CYA" during the eval because many people did not get the difference between a standard and TMDE. . . so then someone decided to changed 3. 8. 4 to read more like the misinterpretation many labs were following.
Our quality manual states to enter the items listed in Table 2 of the 33k.
I was an AFMETCAL assessor for four years. We never wrote any lab up for this in the four years I was there. Has anyone been written up by AFMETCAL for his? Mike's interpretation is correct. The intent is to enter standards and standards are the instrments used to directly transfer accuracy to the unit under test. TO 00-20-14 seems to cover this also; reinforcing the line we took on this subject while I was there. It is not required. I now work in the civilian metrology world and our lab is accredited by A2LA and is also assessed by several other organizations; to include nuclear (NUPIC). We also have a senior metrologist on staff that was an auditor in Europe. Nobody looks for this stuff. Get with the intent. If the metrology industry doesn't check for this stuff, why are we getting all wrapped up in it. Our jobs are hard enough; stop making it harder. This is just another example of CYA taken to an extreme. Unfortunately many of you will have a lab quality manual that requires you to annotate any piece of TMDE you touch as a standard. Sorry if you do
Quote from: Merckx on 05-01-2007 -- 16:37:09
our lab wrote it into the QM so that we would have to enter the ID of ther meter.
What lab are you in?
Bottom line for me was . . . I learned to cover my ass and load anything that I used with an ID# on it when I was done. That included NCR and NPC items too. My philosophy was, that they couldn't write me up for having too many standards entered.
if i entered a pressure gage as a std while calibrating vswr, i would say you listed too many stds and would say this was a major nonconformity. we list them for the reason of tracability. listing extras as a way to CYA does not help if there are so many stds listed as to even know what was cal'd. if the load was required to do an amplitude measurement, then the standardization was important. if the load was just for say a freq measurement to load the output, then not important. i argued for a long while that if a calibrated load which met the requirements listing was used, then standardization was not required cause the item was "good" until the calibration expired. the thing was the TO expressly stated the load needed to be checked prior to calibration with the cable attached in 4 wire mode. . . . everyone who has calibrated a pg506 knows my pain.