View Only
  • 1.  ISO9001:2015/AS9100D Audit

    Posted 05/16/22 09:37 AM

    We recently had a surveillance audit, and the auditor wrote a finding for missing gauges. The gauges that were “missing” were not missing. The case that it comes in has places for expanding its capabilities. The gauge is a 1-2” thread micrometer, and the case has spots for six (6) sets of 60° thread anvils and ten (10) sets of 55° anvils. All anvils can be purchased separately or as a kit. We only bought the 60° set leaving the other ten spots open. This caused the auditor to assume the other ten sets were/are missing.

    I reached out to the auditor a week ago, and I have not gotten a response. I have also added all this information on OASIS under the NC Discussion tab. I don't think this is a finding/NC.

    What are your thoughts on this? Finding/NC?

    What are your thoughts on the auditor?

    Thanks - Josh

  • 2.  RE: ISO9001:2015/AS9100D Audit

    Posted 05/18/22 07:47 AM

    I am only speculating, but are the extra set of thread anvils of the same type used as a control and ensuring the calibration is the same with the other nine sets? In other words, after numerous uses, how is it ensured the calibration is corrected if only one set of thread anvils available? The one set could become worn and become out of calibration tolerance without another set (or more) used as a control.

  • 3.  RE: ISO9001:2015/AS9100D Audit

    Posted 05/20/22 08:10 AM

    Robert, thanks for your reply. No, there is a set master that is used to “zero” the mic. The anvils are for different thread pitches and angles. Suppose you choose to purchase them. The more significant issue for the auditor was the empty locations. I feel like we have integrated 5S into an AS9100D audit.

  • 4.  RE: ISO9001:2015/AS9100D Audit

    Posted 05/23/22 11:08 AM


    I'm flabbergasted by the finding! I assume there is a gage control system that would be available to confirm/refute that there are missing gages (and calibration records). I assume the auditor didn't do “due diligence” to confirm his suspicion.

    Also, depending on the number gages in your system and quality of your gage calibration/tracking system, being concerned about 1 issue may constitute a weakness, but not a full-out failure of the system.

    I faced a similar situation with an auditor on their own for the first time; They found 1 gage in a work area of 27 gages sampled to be late for calibration and declared a calibration system of 1000+ gages non-conforming in a ISO9001 audit (machine shop operation, non- aerospace), without looking at the control system, or sampling another cell in the plant.

    The finding was withdrawn by the auditor's employer when we protested.