Ticking Away the Hours That Make Up a Dull Day...

This line from a well know 1970s song, sums up the approach to calibration I see hundreds of time. Worse, it seems that auditors make calibration into a target rich environment for "Majors" and "minors", when in truth, nothing's broken or needs fixed (except maybe peoples' understanding.

Firstly, calibration rarely has anything to do with the passage of time! It's about USE. I'm pretty certain that my good friend Brad (sorry, Dr. Brad) will confirm that, some equipment could be used once or twice in a year, fail to be recalled at the specified date, yet be totally fine for use. On the other hand, experience shows that using some types of gauge on high frequency part inspection on threads, can wear out a screw plug gauge in a matter of weeks! Put an annual calibration sticker on that and guess what? You're in a world of hurt! Trust me, been there done that!

So auditors who get excited and write non-conformities about recalls being done on time need to stop and think again. Just as with their car, if it was parked on the driveway and did 0 miles in 6 months (low mileage lease?), why would you change the oil? Drive 10,000 miles last month? Better stop by the oil change place NOW!

 

I agree wholeheartedly with you, but would throw in one caution. Just as I would recommend checking the air pressure in your car's tires after it sat unused for 6 months, I can envision some types of measurement instruments that could change even when not used. I am certain that these are relatively rare, but as you said: THINK!

Part of my caution comes from remembering the early days of electronic test equipment where warm up and idle time was a big issue with getting good results. Or mechanical testers where the grease would dry out and change results. Things like this are not as big an issue as they used to be, but my caution remains.

 

And I can't resist that as an auditor you should understand people don't make "excuses" and that the situation needs investigation. All you are doing is reporting a symptom. As auditors we need to evaluate PROCESSES for EFFECTIVENESS. In a previous post you stated that an auditor doesn't need to have worked in the industry they audit. I beg to differ.

 

Agreed! That's where EXPERIENCE and KNOWLEDGE of the issues kicks in and make a huge difference, rather than simply taking symptoms and running with them.