How To Read the AQL Tables for Quality Inspections (Random Sampling)

[@CobaReview]

Great sharing, I could understand now for the sampling plan. But, it would be better if you also share about the condition when we should use Special Inspection Level. Thanks...

[@alejobecerradiaz6480]

Great video, explaining theoretical and practical issues. Just to add my two cents, I noticed 2 errors, the one stated by Jacques Routier and another one on 20:42 : the peak of the "number of samples to check" is not around the AQL, but a bit past the Ac, as can be seen in the next grap; it would be, as it's logical, around the "unconclusive" range of the first sample

[@idokissos]

Comprehensive and comprehensible. Thank you for sharing

[@ericksonescobar7980]

Thanks, for sharing. Can you please make a video on how to accept or reject for one lot only... best regards!

[@luannguyen8555]

I have a misunderstanding in the series of Iso 2859, In Iso 2589 part 1 applied in the case of the lot by lot, but if we consider that the goods lot received isolate, we would apply Iso 2859 part 2 for Limit quality (LQ). I have the question, how can we use AQL in this case of isolate lots received

[@nidhin85]

Hello I have below question: Lot Size: 700 AQL - Critical - 0.4, Major - 2.5, Critical - 6.5 What would be the Sampling Size?, and the acceptance criteria? PLEASE HELP!

[@rajkumar6373]

can u explain how to go for sampling plan for structural parts

[@vipelere]

Fisrt of all thank you very match. Second I have a question please. What about where AQL is equal to 1000 what does it mean please?

[@dayal1005]

Very helpful.

[@vickychintalwar6503]

Very much informative..

[@aniketbongirwar326]

How do we decide general inspection level and special instruction level

[@sandikalaku]

Thank u for sharing sir..

[@Kmartyna9116]

Very usefull, thanks😊

[@heywhatup9657]

Useful, thanks.

[@jacquesroutier2921]

11:30 Buyers / Supplier risk inverted in the comment.

[@alejobecerradiaz6480]

Yes, that's true. In that specific comment, they are inverted. But they are correct in the graph, and correctly explained elsewhere in the video (just to clarify for future viewers)