Aucun titre de diapositive

1
(No Transcript)
2
Object

• To provide you with tools in order to be capable
  of a critical and objective judgement on
  recognitions for which you are prepared
• according to your policy

3
Your policycould be...

• Recognition of only test results or of complete
  evaluations
• Recognition without conditions
• Recognition based on reputation
• Recognition based on your control
• Recognition based on evidence (accreditation,
  peer reviews)

4
This presentation...

• Is the result of my personal experience and
  conclusions but is not exclusive of other
  opinions
• Is not intended to pretend that metrological
  evaluations and controls performed according to
  other rules are not correct

5
Type approval
6
What is type approval ?

• Examination
• technical documentation
• instrument
• Testing the metrological performances
• Judging the conformity (type evaluation)
• Issuing the certificate

7
Examination of the technical documentation

• Clear description of the instrument in order to
  be capable to ensure conformity to type (first
  fundamental aspect)
• Allow the evaluation of conformity to
  requirements

8
Examination of the instrument

• conformity to technical requirements
• clear and easy (height of figures of display)
• complex (general fraudability considerations)
• functional tests
• perfectly described
• not described (manipulations in order to evaluate
  fraudability, suitability for use)

9
Metrological tests necessitate

• clear test procedures
• good knowledge of test procedures and competence
  for manipulations but not necessarily a good
  knowledge of the regulation
• good test report format for test results and test
  conditions, including uncertainties of
  measurements, in perspective of the judgement

10
Judging the conformity (type evaluation)

• Necessitates good knowledge of
• the regulation and requirements
• legal metrology in general
• Comparison of test results to metrological
  requirements (judgement)
• Checking conformity to technical requirements and
  of results of functional tests (judgement)

11
Second fundamental aspect operations of type
approval can be classified in two groups

• Operations performed according to clear test
  procedures such as testing metrological
  performances may be performed by testing
  laboratories (sub-contracting)
• Operations necessitating a suitable experience
  and capacity of judgement must be made by the
  Issuing authority itself

12
Metrological performances(test results)

• Principal the instrument shall fulfil all the
  metrological requirements without (non allowed)
  adjustments or modification during and/or between
  tests
• Consequence all tests should be performed on
  each approved instrument in here above conditions

13
Often the previous principal is not respected...

• Case of a family of instruments and it is not
  economically possible to make all tests on all
  instruments
• Unfortunately the instrument needs to be
  readjusted or modified in the course of tests
• The statutory test procedure gives specific
  provisions on sharing tests on several
  instruments
• The request concerns the modification of a type
  already approved and in general the modified type
  is not subject to the full set of examinations
  and tests
• .

14
Third fundamental aspectHowever the instrument
must be supposed to be capable to respect the
said principaland this necessitate...

• Clear test report indicating tests conditions (in
  particular what tests on what instruments, any
  problem, adjustments, sequence of
  tests/operations)
• Great competence of the Issuing authority in
  order to estimate what would have been all the
  errors when all the tests were not performed on
  each instrument (not developed in this
  presentation) or in case of adjustments

15
Key points issued from fundamental aspects

• Technical documentation detailed in order to
  ensure conformity to type of production
• Detailed test report
• Detailed examination report
• Competence of the testing laboratory
• Competence of the Issuing authority
• Consequence subcontracting policy of the Issuing
  authority

16
RecallYour action depends on your policyto
recognise...

• Only test results (or simple examination of same
  nature)
• Complete evaluations (test results and complete
  examination) that is judgements

17
RecallYour action depends on your
policyaccording to your practice...

• Recognition based on your control
• Recognition based on evidence

18
Recognition of test resultsbased on your control

• Ask for the technical documentation and
• check it is sufficiently detailed (conformity to
  type)
• get assurance it is in conformity with the one of
  the original Issuing authority
• Ask for the test report and check that it
  contains all necessary elements in order to make
  your own judgement, in particular
• identification of instruments subject to which
  tests
• in order to assume the conformity even if tests
  have been shared on several instruments

19
Recognition of complete evaluationbased on your
control

• Ask for the same elements than previously
• Ask in addition for the examination report and
  the final (global) conclusion on the conformity
  of the type issued by the original Issuing
  authority
• Check that all aspects related to judgement have
  been managed by the Issuing authority and not by
  a testing laboratory if subcontracting has been
  practised

20
Note that evaluation based on your control
provides little information on the competence of
the original Issuing authority (and if applicable
the Testing laboratory) unless you practice
yourself peer reviews
21
If you want to practice recognition based on
evidence of competence ask preferably for
accreditation of

• The original Issuing authority for recognition of
  complete evaluations
• The testing laboratory for recognition of test
  results

22
ACCREDITATION The most appropriate means
internationally recognisedfor evaluating the
competence of a body
23
But...

• Accreditation alone is meaningless
• to be useful and valuable, accreditation must be
• based on an appropriate international standard
• specific to type approval, that is the standard
  is accompanied with a specific application guide
  dealing with the key-points of type approval

24
Appropriate basic standards on quality
assurancefor type approval
25
Perspectives

• OIML will develop guidance documents for
  accreditation of Issuing authorities and testing
  laboratories for type approval
• The OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA)
  should provide solutions for tests results (not
  complete evaluation)

26
The Laboratoire national dessais (LNE), the
French body in charge of type approval, is
accredited specifically for type approval
27
Initialverification
28
Key points

• Capable of conformity to type (technical
  documentation)
• Competence of the body (solution specific
  accreditation according to ISO/CEI 17 020
  General criteria for the operation of various
  types of bodies performing inspection, equivalent
  to EN 45 004
• Marking aspects lead
• either to recognise the marking of the other
  State
• or to develop tracability of verifications and
  identification of instruments in order to mark
  them in your country

29
Conclusions

• Recognition is something not obvious if you want
  to have good confidence, but solutions already
  exist and will be better developed in the future
• you may do a minimum of control yourself
• Specific accreditations provide assurance on the
  competence of bodies
• The MAA will bring a good contribution, provided
  it is well managed (need of a coordinator having
  competence in type approval and accreditation

30
Thank you for your attention