Self-calibration issue of BC-class instruments in quality certification
Thread Content
Our company is undergoing a reevaluation this year. The issues with the instruments are that the self-calibration portion failed to meet the requirements; the pressure gauge calibration forms did not show specific data, and there were also serious problems with the calibration of temperature instruments. I would like to ask, is it okay if we write the parts related to our own school in simpler terms? If anyone in your company has experience with this, please share your thoughts. Thank you
In quality system management, the values of instruments (also known as measuring devices) must be traceable back to corresponding **standards**. There are two ways to achieve this traceability: external calibration or self-calibration. For self-calibration, it is first necessary to apply to the technical supervision authority to establish a standard, thereby obtaining the qualification for value traceability. The basis for calibration is provided by metrological verification procedures or calibration specifications; these procedures or specifications contain relevant forms that need to be filled out in accordance with the given guidelines. When converting such verification procedures or calibration specifications into internal ones, it is also necessary to follow the **relevant** verification procedures or calibration specifications.
Well, it’s still quite troublesome; you need to apply and also buy equipment. Do all small companies that encounter this issue in quality certification do the same thing? Is there any compromise solution? I’d like to hear how your company handles this issue. And it meets the standard requirements.
Our company does things exactly as I mentioned; these are the standard requirements. As a compromise, it’s possible to have “conversations” with the reviewers in private..........