{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

The Paradox of Acceptance Sampling

We keep trying to find the needle in a haystack

Anthony Chirico
Tue, 10/02/2018 - 12:03
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
  • Add new comment
All articles in this series
The Paradox of Acceptance Sampling
Using MIL-STD-105 As a Process Control Procedure
Applying the Procedures of MIL-STD-105 to Imaginary Limits
Body

Aerospace standard AS9138—“Quality management systems statistical product acceptance requirements” was issued this year (2018), a few years after its accompanying guidance materials in section 3.7 of the International Aerospace Quality Group’s (IAQG) Supply Chain Management Handbook. The new aerospace standard supersedes the aerospace recommended practice of ARP9013 and, related to MIL-STD-105 (ANSI/ASQ Z1.4), claims to shift focus from the producer’s risk to the consumer’s risk with sampling plans having an acceptance number of zero (c=0).

ADVERTISEMENT

Somewhere along this evolutionary path, the sampling procedures of MIL-STD-105 have fallen out of favor, even though the consumer risks of MIL-STD-105 at their designed lot tolerance percent defective (LTPD) point are superior to most plans found within AS9138.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Comments

Submitted by samohyl on Wed, 10/03/2018 - 15:42

acceptance sampling

It is very hard to break the tradition of c=0 sampling plans. As you so smartly show, sample size can get to be rather exaggerated. I recently published a paper on consumer and producer risks where both parties can suffer from alfa and beta, but in different proportions. I would really appreciate your comments.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40092-017-0231-9

  • Reply

Submitted by Anthony Chirico on Thu, 10/04/2018 - 10:37

In reply to acceptance sampling by samohyl

acceptance sampling

Hello Robert - I am in receipt of your paper and I will be happy to comment through your email account once I have an opportunity to fully appreciate your research. - Thank You

  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.
      

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us