1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

Location of measuring equipment

Discussion in 'AS 91XX - Aerospace Quality Standards' started by gvala, May 4, 2022.

  1. gvala

    gvala Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Hello everyone,

    Can anyone provide insight on the meaning or actual implementation of location of measurement equipment.

    "The organization shall maintain a register of the monitoring and measuring equipment. The register shall include the equipment type, unique identification, location, and the calibration or verification method, frequency, and acceptance criteria" 7.1.5.2

    How specific does this location need to be? and what have auditors said about your location tracking?

    Thanks
     
  2. RonR Quality Pro

    RonR Quality Pro Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2021
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    SW Ontario Canada
    This is a bit of a sticky subject, and is the point of discussion on another forum.

    The specificity of the location is (in general) up to you. If you have only a few instruments to track, it should be fairly easy. But if you are like most shops, then it becomes much more difficult, as gauges tend to move around a lot.

    My suggestion to you is that you leave the 'location' as general as possible - most of my gauges show their location as 'production area' (or similar wording). There are a VERY few that are retained in the lab (mostly reference standards).
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  3. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Good question! If you consider the "background" to what is planned to happen, the organization plans it's product manufacturing process and, at certain points in that process, decides what product/process characteristics are required to be measured/monitored to assure that the specification is met. The equipment needed to perform the measuring/monitoring would be assigned to that part of the planned process (where the activity is performed). Hence the need to identify the location. It's not unusual for items of measuring equipment to "migrate" along a production line - often because there had been problems (see Ron's comments above). Knowing where your equipment is located is vitally important as an indicator of effective process controls.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2022
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  4. BradM

    BradM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Arlington, TX
    Hello there!!

    To your question, the location should be as specific as needed to locate the instrument. If say you list Section 4 and any person can go to section 4 and find it (in some reasonable time period) then it's fine. If you put building B, and there are fifteen rooms and hundreds of cabinets to look through, that's a little vague.

    Think of it like this... someone should be able to take that list, pick... 10 or so random instruments, and find them in a reasonable amount of time. "reasonable" is horribly subjective, granted. Me? I don't want me or anybody else having to spend more than five minutes locating the instrument once they reach the "location" from the database.
     
  5. gvala

    gvala Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Thanks for the input. Our shop has been listing the location based on its storage location either in the inspection room, employee toolbox if they own the instrument, or a few in specific production areas. Generally, the auditors haven't questioned our location tracking but my auditor last week briefly expressed opposition to this but I was able to sneak past it as I was easily able to locate the selected sample, only because I am extremely familiar with our instruments and fairly aware of the jobs on the floor.

    As to the points of being able to locate the instrument in a reasonable amount of time I would certainly spend more time updating the location of instruments, as we have new part numbers almost weekly, than I would even if I had to walk the entire shop floor to find it?.
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I wonder what this was based on? BTW - what have your internal audits been finding?

    I'm not sure I understand your point. It sounds to me that your organization has a somewhat ineffective process for meeting 8.1 of the standard. Who determines for each new part number, what the manufacturing process is, and - hence - what is going to be measured using what equipment. How do you avoid, let's say under resourcing a particular measurement because a particular gauge/device is needed in multiple locations for many part numbers?
     
  7. gvala

    gvala Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    I believe it was based on that the auditor wanted to know where the instrument was at the current moment, and our register only has where it will be stored and i could not guarantee it was in that location or not. Internal audits are outsourced and those consultants haven't questioned it to my knowledge.

    My point was only that I would spend more time logging and updating locations then I ever would searching for an instrument.

    As to our process, we do not predetermine what gauge is needed in order to inspect, although gauges that are used are recorded after it has been inspected. In general, we have multiples of gauges we use often (0-1'' mic. or 6'' calipers) but if there is a need for a special gauge in multiple operations, it is shared. Hence the constant updating.
     
  8. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Understood.
    The issue the AS9100D-writer folks are looking to avoid is the delay/ineffectiveness of actions when product is found to be out of spec and when the cause was traced back to the gauging, then having to locate it, while more (potentially) non-conforming parts are made. Of course, the writers don't always consider the ends of the spectrum (of sizes) of organizations implementing this stuff.
     
  9. BradM

    BradM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Arlington, TX
    I hear ya. That was my observation (which I probably didn't do too well :) ) of providing the sufficient location. Sufficient being specific enough that one can go to that area and find it in a reasonable amount of time; but not too specific that all you're doing is updating.

    Now... I will add this. I think there needs to be some control shown over the tools. They shouldn't be moving around all over the facility so much that it's a daily task to play "Where's Waldo" with some calipers.

    As to the auditors comments, the requirements says "location" not the exact coordinates of the device at any particular second! :) If the record says tool room 12, Bob checked it out from that tool room, and you find Bob and show the instrument (just an example), to me that's fine.

    I think the intent is to have a record of where the device can be found. Instead of... someone asking to see instrument... #44 and it takes two days to find it (if you ever do find it).

    I guess I still don't understand.

    Suppose you have five calipers #1-5. You have these calipers listed in your equipment record inventory (with all the other information model, serial number, etc.) You may have in this inventory last calibration, calibration due, etc. that satisfies the requirement you cited in your first post.

    On Tuesday, Lisa does some work and documents on her paperwork she used caliper #2.

    Why would you be going to back to your equipment record inventory and making an entry that Lisa used it?
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  10. gvala

    gvala Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    To clarify, I do not go back to the register to note that Lisa used caliper 2, Lisa's paperwork (AS9102's in our case) is the only documentation that that gauge was used. We do not tell Lisa to use caliper 2 as part of our planning.
     
  11. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    It also occurs to me that if measuring equipment is common across a lot of jobs, the challenge then becomes one of ensuring how many times it is used because that can adversely affect the recall frequency for calibration. #AskMeHowIKnow
     
  12. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I guess that would depend on a number of factors. Are they auditing like your CB auditor? Once a year? Using AS9100D as the audit criterion? Doing a QMS-wide audit each time? Experience shows this isn't an "internal audit"...
     
  13. gvala

    gvala Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    These audits are done once a year using AS9100D. They don't typically audit the entire QMS each year, but this past year a complete audit was done.
     
  14. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    As I suspected. The model they are using is that of an external audit. It's probably all they know (if the consultants attended a Lead Auditor course it's what they were taught) as opposed to looking at if the processes are (cost) effective. It really takes someone who has experienced ineffectual control of measuring equipment to detect the symptoms (or even get beyond looking for cal stickers and other such myths)