First line was dropped: "One reason to send engineers to witness qualification tests and participate in other tests done at ..."
> outside labs is to keep small, fixable errors from becoming large, expensive matters of record or manufacture. > > For what it is worth... I believe no lab (or manufacturer either) should let a customer do something stupid. It's an engineers's duty to at least TELL them. Sometimes the message gets across. > > What has this to do with audits? A comment from a knowledgeable customer engineer about what he'd have written if HE were doing an audit might carry a lot of weight. Remember, once upon a time, companies audited their vendors before engaging them. And some labs are off-limits years later. > > > Cortland > KA5S > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
