I was chatting with a colleague recently, a well-known supplier of precision measuring instruments. I noted, sarcastically, that his company was promoting a half-day training seminar on calibration and best of all—it was free! 

East Coast Metrology LLC. (ECM – Global Measurement Solutions) announced the opening of a new training, service, calibration and retrofit facility in Wixom, MI.

Typical answers include: cheaper, faster, most accurate, none of which would pass a technical smell test. On reflection, many might say they want calibration to tell them if the item to be calibrated is any good or not while not defining what ‘good’ means from a technical point of view.

With more people than ever beginning to read what’s actually printed on calibration reports these days, what was supposed to bring clarity to measurements seems to be providing more discussions and arguments.

The ASQ Inspection Division will honor United States Air Force (USAF) Master Sergeant David A. Valdez as the 2020 Chuck Carter International Inspector of the Year. Valdez will be acknowledged at an award cermony to be held later this year.

As a supplier of all types of measuring instruments, we are regularly asked to quote the cost of repairing some of them. In days gone by, it was a common service offered by many in the industry but modern technology has changed all that while increasing the amount of garbage to the local landfill. Marketing and manufacturing are both to blame.

Our industry is fraught with tales of quality audits from hell and other less than desirable places, usually the result of standards written by folks who know a little but expand it to encompass a lot.

In my last column I noted that I would give some hints to help you avoid problems with assigning and applying acceptance limits, so let’s go back to square one.

More companies than ever are downloading decisions to calibration laboratories causing perfectly acceptable gages and instruments to be ‘failed’ by them. How could such a thing happen?

Some of the data I’ve noted from the AMTMA studies make it very clear that measurement disputes will continue. When the range of readings is close to or exceeds the tolerances of the gages being calibrated, it is a certainty. Further problems will occur due to unrealistic expectations by all the parties involved in a dispute.