How have any of you responded to your customer's request for following AS9102 for FAI requirements? I'm specifically interested in manufacturers of assembled product with vast quantities of internal parts. AS9102 states that every component within the ASSY needs to have the full fledged FAI. This would required HUGE resources and I can't imaging that everyone out there is accepting this requirement. Please, Please, what are your comments?

I share your concern on this issue too. Our products are electronic and electro-mechanical assemblies that have hundreds of components and sub-assemblies. First article requirements are an area where we continually struggle to comply regardless of the standard or customer/regulatory requirement. A couple years ago, Boeing sent a letter to their suppliers chastising them for not complying with the FAI requirements within D1-9000. This forced us to clean up our act……………………somewhat. Our Boeing rep. coached us to lessen the work load by flowing the requirement down to suppliers when possible and to only do FAI’s “on the delta’s” following engineering changes. It’s still a struggle but I believe it is important to comply for obvious reasons beyond just satisfying the customer. Make sure that your quality system specifies exactly who is responsible for FAI’s. Ours did not, so it was like three out-fielders going for a fly ball!

We make many of the component parts that go into our assemblies. Our assemblies could contain in excess of 1000 pieces. So, we cannot flow very much of this down to our suppliers. Even if we could, we'd still be tasked with compiling all the information into the FAI package.

We do first articles on all the components, but we definitely don't keep a copy of the routing and everything else that was associated with the part, though we could electronically retrieve it if necessary. My understanding of AS9102 is that the first article on the upper level part number also contain the first articles for the components. Could you imagine, 1000+ first articles just for one first article package? I just don't know where everyone will get all this manpower.

[This message has been edited by dj (edited 13 July 2001).]

You are definitely correct in that it will require extra work!

As far as new purchased components, you should be able to flow down the entire requirement in the same manner as the automotive industry has done with PPAP. Then you would just need to review the FAI submissions for compliance (along with a confirmation of the first lot received) and maintain them in hard copy or electronic format.

Likewise, your customers should force the issue for end items.

I believe that the real work will be required at the sub-assembly level and I am not sure that there is an easy answer. Maybe somebody else knows of a good creative method for complying without having to add extra resources.

BTW, if you have not already done so, acquire a good high-speed scanner and go electronic to satisfy the record maintenance requirements.

We must be the only two people out here.

Yeah, this site is a bit slow sometimes. It has picked up somewhat in the last month or so. It should get busier when the new revision of the standard is released and registrars start performing audits.

Have you heard of any companys being certified to AS 9100 yet?

Regarding AS9102. The response is correct. Aerospace companies are now just catching up with the automotive people with respect to process control and process proving. The next step will be AS9103 that is like APQP.

As far as complete documentation for AS9102 that is something that can be by customer agreement and standard parts (nuts, bolts and washer type stuff) can be excluded.

There are several Regisrtars that have been approved to Register companies to AS9100, but some are waiting for the new AS9100A that is based on ISO 9000:2000 to be released this month. There are some companies already Certified to the 1999 version.

Hey, thanks for your input.

I have heard the same rumblings too. How do you think an APQP type document will fit into the scheme? It seems like that area is already partially covered by the RTCA documents DO-178 for software and DO-254 for hardware. Our design control/advanced quality planning system is based on a combination of ISO/AS and the aforementioned requirements.

Question for Aeroman? I know this isn't ISO related but I just needed to ask. Does your name have any significance with regards to a certain rock group that just got inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame? Or, is it just aerospace related?

We started our in-depth review yesterday. Had a meeting for 1.74 hours and only made it through 5.6.11. We're just going through listing what we currently do and are also listing our interpretations of the AS9102 standard. We're then going to present these to our customers and see if they'll accept what we're currently doing as meeting the intent of the standard.

We have received another spec requirement from a French customer for EN9102. I haven't been able to find that on the internet but I'm assuming it's Europe's version of AS9102. Anyone know for sure? If so, are there any slight differences?

Re: Companies certified to AS9100

I haven't heard of any but haven't really looked either.

Apparently these people are certified to AS9100: 1999 http://www.malcams.com/qc/

There is a company in Dayton, Oh that has introduced a web-based FAI tool that helps develop the FAI package. The tool is being implemented by a couple of the OEMs to drive the marriage between design and quality. The system lets both dimensional and spec requirments to be consolidated using Intelligent document technology and then offers results reporting and auto evaluation of results for conformance.

What is the name of the company?

Did they develop this tool with the intention of marketing it or is it a home-grown component of their quality system?

Cohesia's product is a commercial offering in process. You can find out about the company at www.cohesia.com. (http://www.cohesia.com.)

Like the original poster, the company I work with produces top assemblies with sometimes hundreds of sub-components. While we do first articles on each stage, AS9102 requires that a top assembly first article incorporate the paperwork of each of them (i.e. must be attached, not simply available), and it must be on the AS9102 prescribed form.

We'll likely tell customers that attempt to invoke this to go pound sand, and that we'll provide an AS9102 FAI only to the top assembly drawing requirements (usually a customer SCD).

As a side note, AS9102 should recognize varying levels of scope for FAI. To fail to do so is to be naively unaware of the impact to thousands of companies. I really don't want to have to negotiate this point on each and every contract. What a PITA... :frust:

Has anyone prepared a separate price quote for the AS9102 FAI effort. When I give our Business Development people a quote they look stunned. Because of the traceability, vendor flowdown, and inspection requirements the effort is large. One of our customers worked their way through the effort with us. One problem was making sure of approved process vendors two levels down. I like the idea of asking for permission to do a top level FAI.

I’ve thought a bit more about this and have refined my position a bit:

1. Most customers order to their SCD, and that is the PN to which the requirement to perform an AS9102 FAI applies. In such circumstances our company position will be that we will perform the FAI to the SCD requirements, which will essentially be envelope dimensional verification, the results of the Qual test, plus the specific part’s ATP results. There will be a bit higher burden in this case, only because we’ll be required to include some additional information and put it all together on the AS9102 forms. This can be handled with appropriate training of the people we have perform the FAI.
2. In those cases where the customer is ordering our company's PN (the detailed design that has a hierarchy of parts) and imposes AS9102 then we’ll have to either negotiate to have this specific requirement removed, or comply with the burden of the multi-tiered FAI (down to the level of the raw material and processing certifications).

By the way, the companies I now see imposing this requirement includes Messier-Dowty, Hamilton Sundstrand, Rolls-Royce, and Boeing.

Greg

You can add Lockheed to the group of customers who want the AS9102.

We've tried the discussion about removing or changing the requirements:bonk: Goooood luck.

As a company we are close to :truce: which means 100% FAI on all detail drawings... just because you can make it once doesn't mean that your process is capable. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

Regarding Lockheed joining in: yeah, I'm anticipating that all of the air framers and major subcontractors will be requiring it within the next year or two. Some will have a solid flow-down, others will simply mumble about it's being an industry standards, but regardless of the contractual call-out it will likely evolve into being everyone's expectation.

To clarify: we were already doing a verification of all of the dimensional characteristics on details and subassemblies, we just weren't attaching all of the raw material and special process certifications to those inspection reports (they were filed separately elsewhere). Plus, the FAI results were recorded on our company forms which do not include ALL of the AS9102 mandated information items.

Nor were we attaching all of the detail FAIs to the top assy level FAI, in part because of the incredible bulk and duplication this makes. For example, if a specific detail is used in several different assemblies one would need to include copies of it in each of the assembly FAIs, plus all of the raw mat'l certs, special process certs, etc. Plus, some of our assemblies have BOMs with hunreds of detail parts...we only get a few hundred to a few thousand bucks for most of our parts...very little margin to cover such nonproductive activity. What a PITA. Guess we'll have to invest in some more filing cabinets, and hire folks to wade through this mire. (I think it could have been designed more efficiently in case my sarcasm is too subtle.)

Thanks for the insight and I understood the sarcasm clearly. There are not many places where customers or suppliers speak honestly on this matter.



I don't know everyone's unique situation but our company creates parts which we assemble and 100% test before shipping. We depend on many suppliers to produce many parts like simple glands while we produce the complex parts. Depending on the complexity and many other criteria of the parts we have always evaluated the need for doing FAI's. Typically our models have between 300 & 400 parts (non ms/nas/etc). Every part is checked during a prove out of the process but only 40%-50% of the parts get the recorded data.

As I can best understand FAI the intent is 1) the part can actually be produced. I.E. the designer wasn't messed up when they made the model or print. 2) Manufacturing didn't forget any features, at this point they don't care if the Cpk is .5 just so long as that 1 part is good. 3) The features are measurable so the machinist on the floor can make a valid decision.

I don't disagree that FAIs have its benefits when applied correctly. But if I have a gland that I know machinists have verified all the sizes to be in specification, it goes to assembly, the gland has 3 grooves for o-rings, there are 3 o-rings to insert and the gland fits...in my mind all is well that the FAI intent was accomplished.

I don't know how your FAI's are referenced but our company's FAI's are only referenced when "situations" occur or for the warm feeling that a box can be checked off. Nine out of ten times we have the FAI for those "situations" and the customer will still ask to check another part instead of asking the right question "what is the process producing". We look for process shifts, cycling, excessive variation as seen in degrading Cp & Cpk values and so on.

Lockheed has an interest in asking the right question. They've created a "variation reduction" program which is more than most customers even consider. They are also giving way to letting us document the FAI's in our own method (on prints, CMM print outs & discrepancy forms...if needed) which will saves lots of useless hours rewriting data.

I would like to know if a company like GE is really 100% AS9102 compliant on their engines and if ALL their sub tier suppliers follow the requirement. Because that is the type of system where the AS9102 will be lost or won. When the engines and complex flight systems become too costly and they lose their edge on the competitors or when the plane is so expensive they can't produce it (see B2 & F22 for some "too costly" examples) people will then reconsider but it will be too late.

It should be noted that the US Navy supply system has been requiring First Article Inspection of suppliers for some years although they have not advanced as far as AS9102. Aslo, suppliers parts/assemblies are often sent to an independent third party for verification in a program called "First Article Testing". (The Naval Air Depot system is often paid to perform"First Article Testing" for the govt.)

Currently, two out of the three Naval Air Depots are currently certified to AS9100-2001. While we have always performed "First Article Inspection" on items we manufacture for ourselves or for the supply system, the new guidelines of AS9102 are forcing a "re-engineering" of our approach.

Bob Cowing

Please see attached a FAQ document on AS9102

Does anyone have an advanced copy or know when the rev B will be released?

Hi Jnier,

In the last AAQG meeting in Montreal, they announced that the draft of the latest revision had been completed. The Revision is being ballotted right now. I believe that it will be a Rev. A, since the original document was "no change".

From what I gathered, based on user's feedback, the Rev. A of AS9102 will be less prescriptive and make some of the original mandatory requirements as "optional" that would only be enforced if contractually stipulated.

Hello Sidney and all,

Could you tell me what is considered a Major and Minor characteristic on a drawing?
Thanks, Paula

Yes, every Part Number must have an FAI. So you are required to perform an FAI of the details, Sub Assemblies and Final Assembly. Now what we changed in revision A was that you are only required to perform an FAI on engineering chnages on the part level affected.

The only thing an FAI does is verify that your planning and tooling will produce a part to engineering long term. Therefore, an inspection of 100% of components characteristics should be a part of your quality plan already.

Remember you are only required to perform an FAI until approved and then only after an engineering change are you required to perform an FAI on those component features which were affected by the engineering chnages.

You may see an increase in manpower during a program start up or a redesign but you are not required to re-perform your FAIs to AS9102 on existing approved FAIs.

I hope this helps

Ray
How have any of you responded to your customer's request for following AS9102 for FAI requirements? I'm specifically interested in manufacturers of assembled product with vast quantities of internal parts. AS9102 states that every component within the ASSY needs to have the full fledged FAI. This would required HUGE resources and I can't imaging that everyone out there is accepting this requirement. Please, Please, what are your comments?

These are what I have always used. They are from the FAA.

Major - A characteristic other than "Critical" that, if defective, could result in failure of, or would materially reduce the usability of, the article, and could result in unsafe conditions for individuals using or maintaining an end product.

Minor - A characteristic that, if defective, is not likely to materially reduce the usability of the unit or product for its intended purpose, or will have little bearing on the effective use or safety of the end product.

Hope this helps.

Ray


QUOTE=Raptorwild]Hello Sidney and all,

Could you tell me what is considered a Major and Minor characteristic on a drawing?
Thanks, Paula[/QUOTE]

The new AS9102A does not appear to specifically require a full Top Down First Article. Page 7, section 5.5 gives a definition of the requirements for the Forms. R is mandatory, CR Conditionally Required; when applicable ie. Customer requirement, and O optional. Therefore if the customer does not require a top down or the manufacturer does not want a full FAI then it is not required. Does anyone want to either comment or have a different Official interpretation?

The R CR and O were used to define whether an auditor when reviewing an FAI report would expect to see entries in these blocks. It is not intended to define customer requirements. The requirement is to perform an FAI at every level of manufacturing so that every component characteristic is verified.
Now please keep in mind that if you have a customer who is not requiring FAIs to be performed to AS9102 then you can read it anyway you wouild like. We attempted to write the standard as clear as possible but when you are writing an international standard that can be very difficult.
Please do a search on AS9102 Rev A and you will see I was on the revision committee.
Ray Winkowski

QUOTE=Hal]The new AS9102A does not appear to specifically require a full Top Down First Article. Page 7, section 5.5 gives a definition of the requirements for the Forms. R is mandatory, CR Conditionally Required; when applicable ie. Customer requirement, and O optional. Therefore if the customer does not require a top down or the manufacturer does not want a full FAI then it is not required. Does anyone want to either comment or have a different Official interpretation?[/QUOTE]

Ray, thank you. You have prevented customer problems. The good thing about this site is being able to clear up questions such as this. However, unfortunately, I am not the only one that misunderstood the AS9102A Standard. A major first tier aerospace supplier has as part of its requirements indicated which of the CR's on the forms they require to be entered. This should probably be clarified in an official interpretation and later in the next revision.

Hello all!!

New to this forum but trying to make heads or tails of the requirements of AS9102 and the soon to come AS9103 that we are going to be going to. My understanding is that AS9102 is supposed to be a standard for those that are going for compliance. We have an issue that a customer of ours that has two modalities and the two sides can not agree on which standard to use and they are still imposing there own seperate guidelines. From my understanding as long as the customer has not established FAI requirements it is a guideline and if they are requiring AS9102 compliance then it becomes the standard.

Correct me if I am wrong but if they come out and say we are going to AS9102 for FAI's, then there is a set standard that they will follow? The whole idea was to get the Aerospace industry standardized. They will not be able to impose their own requirements. If this is the case I wish that they would just say to go to that full time. With about 50-60 ECO's a month it is very difficult to keep track of all the changes that are going on.

Sorry this was so long but I got questions and I am the only one in my company that is working full time on this project and there is not a lot of support.

The contractual requirement cannot be gotten around but typically FAI requirements are flowed down to the actual manufacturer and need not be redone by the Company assembling these parts to produce an assembly. They would be responsible for assembling the FAI package including all of the lower level FAIR's and those pertaining to any parts the assembler produced, any lower level sub-asemblies and the top level assembly itself. Standard parts (off the shelf items) do not require FAI as they are typically qualified products.

Tom

According to the AS9102A document for the Form 1 completion under line item 15 there is a requirement for "detail or next level sub-assembly part number to be included in the assembly". We currently received a rejection for not having this filled out. This question is in reference to the fact that we do not build assemblies that have lower level subs, so do we have to fill out this section? How is everyone else treating this? Our customer is trying to change the rules of the specification in mid stream, and say that section is referring to the PCB and any custom parts used on the board. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks :frust:

Any detail parts or components required by the top assembly are to be included (with the exception of industry-standard item, such as NAS, MS, and similarly controlled items). So, if your top assembly incorporates a custom potentiometer, or LED display, or some other component, that would need to be listed, as would the PCB itself.

Ok then, I have yet another question. How long is the supplier supposed to wait for the customer to return pass information for the FAI submitted? Are we supposed to continue to ship with all of the changes and three FAI's submitted without any acceptance from the customer? I don't think that is the right way to go, but the standard does not address this. Has anyone else ran into this?

Ok then, I have yet another question. How long is the supplier supposed to wait for the customer to return pass information for the FAI submitted? Are we supposed to continue to ship with all of the changes and three FAI's submitted without any acceptance from the customer? I don't think that is the right way to go, but the standard does not address this. Has anyone else ran into this?

Our customers requiring FAI, in general, do not want us to ship until we rec'v approval. However, we have been given instructions to ship on one occasion. Their incoming inspection process is time consuming so they asked us to ship with a notation on the Certificate of Conformance that serial #XX through XX are pending FAI approval. So the parts were already ready to assemble on their end as soon as FAI was approved.

That was a special circumstance. I'd ask your customer.

My experience where I work is that very few customers require pre-approval of FAIs prior to shipment. I agree that when they do it usually turns out to be very inconvenient.

The problem that we are running into is that the customer lets us ship the FAI in a seperate package, then ship the rest of production seperately. Now, if the FAI fails for some reason the entire stock of production will fail and give us a PPM hit. So instead of getting dinged for just the FAI we now are dinged for that plus the production boards. I can't get management to see this issue and no one ever wants to push back on the customer.

The other issue that I have, among others, is that I have been told that when our customer gathers their teams together from four different modalities then they are going to tell us how they want it done. I can't get our management team to be proactive and assemble our own team for AS9102 implementation. So we sit here and wait for the customer to beat the heck out of us and interpret the standard as they see fit then pass it to us. This is highly frustrating. Currently it is just myself that is managing the AS9102 project, well it is myself and the quality manager but his plate is way to full to consider any help on this. It all rolls down hill right.

Does this mean that you are asking your supppliers to use the AS9102 documentation? We have little mom and pop places that will ahve no idea of how to do this, are we responsible for the training as well? Does the supplier need to be AS9102 certified as we are as well? We are having issues with all of this and we have a meeting coming up and I am trying to get some firepower here. Thanks