Scope of Accreditation, Z540.1 & Z540.3

[DAVETEE]

Does a scope only apply to ISO 17025, the international standard, or does it also apply to Z540 the national standards?
For example;  the scope states " XYZ Laboratory has been assessed by ANAB and meets the requirements of international standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 and national standard ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994 & ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006" in addition it says Pressure 0-10k psig, and an CMC uncertainty of 0.01 %, I know I can't state a better uncertainty, or a pressure above the range, for an Accredited ISO 17025 calibration, but what about a Z540 calibration, provided I adhere to the other requirements of Z540.

Specifically: Can XYZ Laboratory issue a Z540.1 certificate for a 12k psig pressure gauge?

Thank you for your time.

[RFCAL]

You state the scope range is 0-10k psig. You cannot issue an accredited cert for a 12k psig range unless you mark that measurement as non-accredited. you can issue a Z540.1 cert provided you do not add an accredited logo.

[MIRCS]

Wasn't Z540.1 cancelled and replaced by Z540.3?

[silv3rstr3]

"ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006 replaces Part II of ANSI/NCSL Z540.1-1994(R2002), which was withdrawn in July 2007."

[metrologygeek]

Yeah, but dot 3 has not been and never will be fully accepted. That's why most labs are referencing 17025 and/or Z540.1

[griff61]

Yeah, but dot 3 has not been and never will be fully accepted. That's why most labs are referencing 17025 and/or Z540.1

Why is that?

[RFCAL]

Because it is up in the clouds and we are on the ground--most places cannot comply--Tektronix will NOT comply.

[ck454ss]

Pretty much the bottom line why it wont be accepted anytime soon is cost.  As stated above,  the requirements are just ridiculous in areas.  Calculating PFA's throw in some guard banding and many changes in the standard from "Should" to "Shall" is just to much for the return on quality.  Is going from 99.9% quality rating to 99.92% quality rating while doubling your quality budget reasonable...many companies say nope. 

[griff61]

Thanks for the explanation.
In my recent experience with the new and improved Tektronix calibration labs, they outsource their own stuff to some outfit on the west coast...oddness

[USMC kalibrater]

I dont agree with the statement that the requirements are "ridiculous".  I think the push back is because there are a lot of companies that realize they just do not have enough (or any) people who understand the statistical portions of the standard, thus would not be able to support it.
I do however think it's silly to have two standards governing the same industry.  17025 and Z540.  There are alot of good things in DOT3...PFAs and guardbanding being two of them.. in my opinion.... but it's only an American standard.
17025 is the international standard (accepted globally),I think it's sufficient (far from perfect) and I think there are a lot of holes in it that need to be tightened up.
The piece to pay attention to is that many Gov contracts have replaced 17025 requirements with Z540.3 requirements and they are not waiving it.  So I dont see Z540.3 going away anytime soon.

The fact that Tek and some other companies are digging their heels in has zero bearing on the outcome.  There are plenty of companies who have completed dot3 accreditation, the work will simply go to them .

 

[OlDave]

I have to agree with metrologygeek, RFCAL and ck454ss. The marginal (and VERY marginal) gains that you achieve by dot 3 compliance are not worth the expense in my opinion. We have reached the point where we are down in the dirt at the 3rd, 4th or 5th decimal place trying to determine our uncertainties and have lost sight of the fact that it is still an ESTIMATION of uncertainty.

[USMC kalibrater]

I do agree in many aspects they are very similar and besides the added statistical processes the differences are marginal. Hence my suggestion that the fear driving the no Z540.3 train is the stats portion.
I don't understand Ol'Dave's comment about uncertainties.  Why would you squeeze all the fat out of your budget?  There is no requirement in either standard to have the smallest uncertainty possible.  It surely is not for sales and marketing, atleast I havent seen many "tightest uncertainty in the business" marketing campaigns.  I dont think the largest majority of customers even consider each competitors uncertainties when the select vendors.   Lastly you only report uncertainties at 3 significant digits (at the most)...

I agree though that 17025 makes far more sense than Z540.3 from a practicality standpoint. 

[RFCAL]

My Goodness USMC!! Dot 3 sucks in all aspects. It is very confusing and not very $$ friendly to comply. The Govt is pushing this and it WILL die as more and more companies say F---U! I can understand the guardbanding, but the rest of it is pure garbage!

[scottbp]

I liken Z540.3 to replacing the chains on the sidelines of a NFL football game with a precision measuring tape; yet the largest uncertainty component is where the referee places the ball...

[NC-Cals]

At the end of the day knowing the uncertainties does virtually nothing to improve the quality of the calibration. Sure, you must know your uncertainties to be NIST traceable, but to calculate each uncertainty for each measurement does nothing but give the client more information than they need to determine if their equipment met their needs. This push to do statistical analysis may be driven on the highest levels to assure the quality of calibration across the industry, but it has become a money-making conspiracy. Small commercial labs generally don't have the man-power required to keep up with these ever increasing demands. Then you add the cost of accreditation, artifact testing, caculating uncertainties, QA overhead...the cost to the client goes up and up for what is essentially the same calibration they got before accreditation.