Case Study: When the Glass Breaks – TAS 201 / 202 / 203 Hurricane Impact & Pressure Testing in an ISO/IEC 17025 Lab
How a Hurricane Impact Test Lab Balanced Customer Pressure and Accreditation Integrity
1. Background
• Laboratory:WindSafe Test Lab
• Accreditation:ISO/IEC 17025 accredited, including the following standards in its scope:
TAS 201 – Impact Test Procedures
TAS 202 – Uniform Static Air Pressure Test
TAS 203 – Cyclic Static Air Pressure Test
• Customer:
HurricaneShield Windows – a window/door manufacturer aiming to sell products in hurricane-prone regions of the United States.
Their new window system must pass a Miami-Dade–type approval process before entering the market.
The laboratory is fully aware that the TAS 201 / 202 / 203 test results are critical for the product’s market approval*. Commercial pressure is high, tests are expensive, and timelines are tight.
2. Scenario: “If We Miss This Series, We Miss the Season”
HurricaneShield kicks off the project with a strong time constraint:
• The manufacturer needs to launch the new product line *before the upcoming hurricane season.
• They approach the lab with a clear request:
> Can you complete TAS 201 / 202 / 203 testing on an accelerated schedule, within 2 weeks?
> If we miss this window, we miss the whole season.”
• At WindSafe Test Lab:
The pressure chamber, impact rigs, and data acquisition systems are all available.
However, due to the rush, several risks emerge:
A heavily loaded test schedule
Limited technical staff
Preventive maintenance windows being shifted or compressed
3. Test Day: An Unexpected Failure in the TAS 201 Impact Test
On the day of the TAS 201 Large Missile Impact test:
1. The test specimen (window) is installed in the rig by the manufacturer’s technical team.
2. The lab checks the installation only visually against the design instructions; no detailed photographic evidence is recorded.
3. On the first large missile impact:
The glass breaks severely, with cracks extending beyond the defined safe area.
The test appears to be a clear failure.
The customer immediately objects:
“This isn’t fair. Our installer was in a rush and didn’t mount it correctly.
TAS is supposed to test the window, not a mounting mistake.
Please treat this specimen as invalid, don’t put it in any official record, and let’s repeat the test.
At this point, the lab faces a critical dilemma:
• Impartiality and integrity (ISO/IEC 17025, clause 4.1)
• Customer satisfaction and commercial pressure
• Integrity of records (the obligation to record every test and deviation)
4. Key Decision Points for the Laboratory
WindSafe holds an internal meeting with the quality manager, technical manager, and project lead:
1. Recording the Test Result
Option A:Declare the test “cancelled” and not record it at all.
Option B:Keep it as an official record in the system, label it as “failed” or at least archive it as an “invalid test” with a clear explanation.
2. Communication With the Customer
The manufacturer insists that the result should not appear anywhere.
The lab knows that, under its procedures and contracts, every test run must be recorded in some form.
3. Conditions for Retesting
It is unclear whether the installation was done strictly in line with the manufacturer’s documented instructions (because the lab did not capture enough detail).
For any repeat test, the lab considers requiring:
Installation to be carried out by the lab or by manufacturer staff whose competence is verified and documented, and
Full documentation of the setup, including photos and a mounting checklist.
5. How the Process Evolves
The lab ultimately chooses the following course of action:
1. The first attempt is recorded in the system as an “invalid test”
No formal external test report is issued.
Internal raw data and observations are retained.
The event is logged as a deviation / incident record in the quality system.
2. A Corrective Action Is Initiated
The root cause analysis reveals that the mounting process is not sufficiently controlled by procedure.
A new *Mounting Control Form* is introduced, including mandatory photos.
A pre-acceptance checklist is created for manufacturer personnel performing installation.
3. Transparent Communication With the Customer
The lab informs the customer in writing that:
The first test has been classified as “invalid” due to non-verifiable mounting conditions.
The data will be retained in the lab’s internal records but will not be used in the external test report.
The retest will be carried out under a revised and clearly defined installation and documentation process shared with the customer.
4. The Second Test Series
The new specimen is mounted using the updated process, with a checklist and photographs fully completed.
TAS 201, TAS 202, and TAS 203 are performed in the correct sequence and according to the applicable standards.
This time, all tests are successfully completed.
5. Reporting and Decision Rules
The official report is based on the second, valid test series.
Pass/fail criteria and decision rules are clearly described in the report.
The first “invalid” test is kept only in internal records and is used as an input for management review and continual improvement.
6. Discussion Topics From an ISO/IEC 17025 Perspective
In training sessions, this case study can be used to trigger discussion around the following topics:
1. Impartiality vs. Commercial Pressure (Clause 4.1)
When a customer says “ignore this test, don’t record it”, how should a lab respond?
If a test is recorded internally but not reported externally, how should this be documented?
2. Process Validity and Records (Clauses 7.2, 7.5, 7.11)
If mounting is part of the test process, how should it be controlled and recorded?
What kind of evidence (photos, checklists, signatures) should be collected to defend the validity of the test?
3. Corrective Action and Risk-Based Thinking (Clause 8.5)
Is this incident just “bad luck, or a symptom of a systematic weakness?
What actions are needed to prevent similar disputes in other projects?
4. Input to Internal Audit and Management Review (Clauses 8.8 & 8.9)
How should this case be examined during the next internal audit?
Under which agenda items should it be discussed in management review (risks, customer complaints/appeals, process improvement, etc.)?
7. Discussion and Conclusion
This case clearly shows that in high-impact structural testing such as TAS 201, TAS 202, and TAS 203 hurricane impact and pressure tests, technical capability alone is not enough. Process control and the integrity of records are just as critical as the performance of the test rigs themselves.
When the glass broke unexpectedly on the first impact, WindSafe Test Lab found itself caught between two powerful forces:
• On one side, the customer’s commercial concerns and the request to “pretend this test never happened”,
• On the other, the core ISO/IEC 17025 principles of *impartiality, traceability, and complete, honest records*.
By choosing not to erase the first attempt, but to record it as an “invalid test”, open a corrective action, and strengthen the mounting and documentation process, the lab demonstrated a risk-based, evidence-driven approach aligned with ISO/IEC 17025. As a result:
• The lab formally acknowledged that the mounting process is an integral part of the test.
• It made *photo-documented, checklist-based installation mandatory to prevent future disputes.
• The incident was fed into internal audit and management review, becoming part of the lab’s organizational memory.
When using this case in training, you can guide discussion with questions such as:
• If you were the lab, would you completely delete the first test, or record it as “invalid”?
• When mounting is done by the customer’s staff, how do you balance impartiality with shared responsibility?
• As an internal auditor, which records and controls would you expect to see in this situation?
Ultimately, this case study highlights a key message:
In hurricane impact testing, it’s not only the window system that is being tested
the laboratory’s ethics and commitment to the ISO/IEC 17025 framework are on trial as well.
The “right” decision is not the one that is commercially most convenient,
but the one that is most consistent with the principles of the standard.