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?
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.
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
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...
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 :wink:
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 :wink:
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..
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.
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.
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.
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!
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...
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.
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
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 :wink:
That's in this thread, a lot more in other threads.
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 :wink:
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.
The procedure you used and the specs the units was tested to are very important part of the calibration. I think, just as important as traceability of the measurement. To me you have to have a fully documented audit trail.
Most labs just put on their certificates of calibration "Manufacturer's Procedure", "Manufacturer's Spec". But that tells me nothing... What exact manual did you use? What exact specifications spec?
We have a customer that took this seriously. We built a custom solution for them that listed the specific documents used on the certificate of calibration. It showed the technician the exact manual they had to get, and the process they had to follow to complete the calibration. All the Work Instructions, manuals and the change history was stored in the database. Yes a complete audit trail of the work from door to door.
Mike
P.S. Edison MUDCAT also does an excellent job of creating a document trail.
With the defense of skidaddle in full swing in another thread and continued references to GIDEP procedures. I have the following:
skidaddle, Is your Calibration Lab certified to ISO 17025? It is okay to quote from the ISO but if your company makes no reference to being ISO Certified or claim to be ISO Complient insisting that it be followed is not what is in their best interest.
As has been stated before, many GIDEP procedures are not fully calibrating every parameter of the test instrument. Quite a few do much more, I previously worked for a major manufacturer's service lab and an Air Force Calibration Lab and there were many test points we calibrated for the AF Lab that were not a requirement for the manufacturer. This was mostly on handheld meters and the like but there are many instances where the AF CTOs are overkill. And many more that should be expanded. That's not an argument, that's a fact.
If you read ISO 17025, there is also a section where the Calibration Lab is to provide as found and as left data when requested by the customer. Many customers do not require this but if you really want to provide your customer a comprehensive report on the calibration you will utilize this procedure. If you are only providing your customer with a sticker or the Report of Calibration without data you may have to re-think your position as a Calibration Lab. Although it also depends on your communication with your customer and understanding their requirements and the type of calibration you're providing for them.
skidaddle, if you have a problem with any of this, you know where I work and probably have my phone and e-mail; so let me know.
I will have to agree. In addition to ISO 17025 is ANSI Z540.3. Both require that the lab communicate with the customer the calibration procedures and/or test points. Both require a master document list and that the test data be available upon request. Unfortunately, far too many labs that are accredited do not provide this data upon request, nor do the provide traceable information of their standards on their calibration certificate. And to think that they somehow became A2LA accredited? Does someone have a big check going to an offshore account for that audit?
Quote from: CalDude on 09-06-2012 -- 11:42:07
I will have to agree. In addition to ISO 17025 is ANSI Z540.3. Both require that the lab communicate with the customer the calibration procedures and/or test points. Both require a master document list and that the test data be available upon request. Unfortunately, far too many labs that are accredited do not provide this data upon request, nor do the provide traceable information of their standards on their calibration certificate. And to think that they somehow became A2LA accredited? Does someone have a big check going to an offshore account for that audit?
CalDude -- Don't know why you had to go into detail about cal house's and A2LA accreditation on a thread about GIDEP. Get your head out of the region in which you evacuate your bowels.
Seriously though...Cal Houses are there to perform work for paying customers. Your integrity should kick in at some point and say "we need to do the best job we can for our customers". If your customer has expressed their acceptance of your procedures and calibration check points, that's ok. If you have not received that consent, you should be checking to manufacturers specifications using a procedure that may or may not have been a GIDEP procedure AND that was validated/approved by management or a designated representative (ANSI Z540.3, ISO 10012, ISO 17025, or any other applicable reference one wants to throw in there).
I am sure the lack of communication between customer and lab was the original issue with the OP. I have done my fair share of working in sticker shops and know well what OP is refering to. I"m sure that the problem is the fact that many commercial labs like using the GIDEP procedures because they can claim ignorance on the validity of the procedure, cut corners and make more money.
If anyone doubts the last thing I said then you would only do so under the intent to cover your own butts. I am placing my vote that GIDEP procedures should be validated for accuracy. I wrote those procedures for the USAF. Also is the fact that we all know that these procedures are continuously a work in progress as people from the field constantly submit corrections. Another problem is that many of the customers don't care what procedure you use if you aren't applying a limitation. So you place a 33K procedure into the "procedure used" block and then give it a full calibration (this is common practice, believe me). At the end of the day the customer gets a full calibration sticker while parameters aren't verified and it's all fine and dandy because.... The customer agreed to it.
To that I say, the customers are not the "experts" in this matter, WE ARE. So if anyone is fine with slipping one by the customer by taking advantage of their ignorance, then good on you. I will strive to meet my customers' expectations and take it as a personal responsibility to ensure the customers' needs are met.
To the OP: you have good ideas but my advice is to get your head straight and stop ranting. Ranting even if you are correct is still.. just... ranting. Get another job if you are unhappy and leave 3rd party sweat shops alone. There are plenty of cal-techs out there that would love to punch a time clock and get paid by pretending to calibrate stuff. I use to be angry like you but I moved on to better things and could not be happier in my career and life.
If anyone doubts the last thing I said then you would only do so under the intent to cover your own butts. I am placing my vote that GIDEP procedures should be validated for accuracy. I wrote those procedures for the USAF. also is the fact that we all know that these procedures are continuously
Seriously...check out AFTO 33K3-4-3576-1 for the Tektronix DSO 70404. Where is the Delta Time Measurement Accuracy? Delay Between Channels? Channel-to-Channel Isolation? The Air Force may not need it for their applications, but if your customer is using the oscilloscope to verify performance of chipsets in manufacturing applications, those functions are critical and should be tested.
How about the Mahr Federal CX1? The USAF downgraded the manufacturers specifications in 33K6-4-3445-1 (see step 3.7). They don't even test the Measuring Force or perform the Repeatability tests.
I could go on all day about GIDEP procedures and why you should not use them for accuracies. But, as a good resource for calibration guides (techniques, equipment setups, etc.) I have no complaints.
GIDEP procedures are great for field calibrations. maybe they are lacking a little for testing instruments to the fullest, or for a standards lab, but for general equipment use in the field, they are good
*Sighs* If the procedure is not calibrating to full mfr's specs and you aren't placing a limitation on the equipment, then GIDEP procedures are great for equipment that does not recieve a calibration certificate at the end. I thought we already ironed this one out? lol.