We are AS9100 registered and produce both industrial and aerospace products, do I need to apply the requirement for FAI on all parts produced or just the Aerospace parts? And If I only do FAIs on aerospsace parts is my sytem still compliant to AS9100 if I do not perform FAI on industrial (non-aerospace) parts?

We are AS9100 registered and produce both industrial and aerospace products, do I need to apply the requirement for FAI on all parts produced or just the Aerospace parts? And If I only do FAIs on aerospsace parts is my sytem still compliant to AS9100 if I do not perform FAI on industrial (non-aerospace) parts?What do the contracts with your non-aerospace customers require?

Let's be sure we are on the right track of the exact definition of a First Article Inspection versus a "critical characteristics inspection" which is what many non-aerospace customers are willing to accept and pay for (reflected in the price you charge.) The reality is an FAI takes time, materials, and documentation and the supplier has to recoup the cost either as a separate fee or included in the price. If you provide MORE inspection service than a customer requires, you may end up pricing yourself out of the market if you charge accordingly.

We are AS9100 registered and produce both industrial and aerospace products, do I need to apply the requirement for FAI on all parts produced or just the Aerospace parts?

FAI inspection is only an aerospace requirement and need only apply to your aerospace product. In AS9100 Rev. B, paragraph 8.2.4.2 the requirement for FAI is in bold italics, which means it is an aerospace requirement.

My company performs FAI's on all aerospace product. And PPAP's, ISIR's, etc. on industrial product, when specified by customer contract.

And If I only do FAIs on aerospsace parts is my system still compliant to AS9100 if I do not perform FAI on industrial (non-aerospace) parts?

Yes, you will still be compliant with AS9100. Just to CYA, IMHO incorporate the requirement, to only perform FAI's on aerospace product, into your QMS.

By the way, WELCOME to the cove. :bigwave:

I am talking right now irregardless of contract requirments, just AS9100 FAI requirement 8.2.4.2..

Can I only do the FAI for product supplied to my aerospace customers and not to other customers and still be complaint to 8.2.4.2?

What is the scope statement on your registration? Does it include industrial products as well?

Throw out the contract issue, if your QMS Scope includes industrial products you would not comply with your certification as approved. However, you may meet the requirements of AS9100 and references!

I am talking right now irregardless of contract requirments, just AS9100 FAI requirement 8.2.4.2.

Can I only do the FAI for product supplied to my aerospace customers and not to other customers and still be complaint to 8.2.4.2?

If you only do FAI's for product supplied to aerospace customers you WILL still be compliant to AS9100 8.2.4.2.

The requirements to perform a First Article Inspection are driven by customer requirements stated in the contract. Many people believe that an FAI is a first piece inspection produced during the start of the production run (set-up) which it is not.

In the aerospace industry the FAI is a detailed inspection of all drawing, specification and PO requirements applicable to the product being procured by the customer. They can be big honking packages of documents that shown in detail how the product conforms to all the contractual requirements.

AS9102 is almost always the default requirement in the aerospace industry and usually the customer adds additional requirements.

In my opinion: Regardless of the contractual requirements, for my own warm fuzzy feeling, I would perform a "First Article" Inspection on any new products and any ones that may not have been in production for 2 years or more. The tooling could change, the drawing requirements could change, the customer requirements could change, processes can change, suppliers can change, and since I already have the FAI performed for my Aerospace Customers, I would for the company's benefit, perform one, on the industrial/commercial products group. It should be second nature on the FAI.

As for your question of compliance: You are only required to perform a FAI for your Aerospace customers, in my opinion.

I am currently doing FAIs on all products, but it consumes vast resources, time, people, money. Just wasn't sure if I am over doing it.

I am currently doing FAIs on all products, but it consumes vast resources, time, people, money. Just wasn't sure if I am over doing it.

It really gets down to: Determining your resources. If you choose not to perform FAI for the commercial/industrial side, that is you and your company's choice. Have you talked to the Operations/Plant Management side and get some feedback?

You may find that they prefer or not prefer that a FAI be performed on all products or maybe they would prefer a First Piece Inspection from the manufacturing side.

One question that I am going to ask:

What are your reject rates from the internal customer and external customer side of the coin?

What is the scope statement on your registration? Does it include industrial products as well?

Throw out the contract issue, if your QMS Scope includes industrial products you would not comply with your certification as approved. However, you may meet the requirements of AS9100 and references!

Yes, I believe that this is correct.

The requirements to perform a First Article Inspection are driven by customer requirements stated in the contract.

This is not true. The requirement to perform an FAI is stated in section 8.2.4.2 of the AS 9100 standard IF you are certified as compliant with the standard.

AS9102 is almost always the default requirement in the aerospace industry and usually the customer adds additional requirements.

This is not true either. AS 9100 section 8.2.4.2 is the default requirement. The use of AS 9102 forms and processes is the additional requirement that is typically flowed down contractually by your customer(s).

The only other additional requirements that I have seen are that the customer would like to receive a copy of the FAIR with the first shipment and/or they would like to witness/approve the FAI.

I am currently doing FAIs on all products, but it consumes vast resources, time, people, money. Just wasn't sure if I am over doing it.

Before you stop performing FAI's on the non-aerospace product, be sure to evaluate the risks of not doing them......especially the delta (partial) FAI's that are done to verify the proper implementation of changes.

What are your typical findings when you do an FAI? You may find that there is tremendous value in what you are doing.

Bagerman.

The requirement to perform FAI, as opposed to first piece inspection, is performed in response to contract requirements. First piece inspection is required within the realization process of the Standard. FPI is significantly deferent from FAI.

AS9100 is the requirement to have a process for FAI but the actual how to due it is in AS9102 the international standard for performing FAI’s which is required about 75% of contracts we see commingling into my organization.

The requirement to perform FAI, as opposed to first piece inspection, is performed in response to contract requirements.

Not if your AS9100 registered/certified, its an AS requirement to perform FAI's regardless of contract requirements as per 8.2.4.2. If your not AS registered/certified and your customer requests it, then it would be a contract requirement.

Bagerman.

The requirement to perform FAI, as opposed to first piece inspection, is performed in response to contract requirements. First piece inspection is required within the realization process of the Standard. FPI is significantly deferent from FAI.

AS9100 is the requirement to have a process for FAI but the actual how to due it is in AS9102 the international standard for performing FAI’s which is required about 75% of contracts we see commingling into my organization.

Yes, we are talking about FAI here.

If you are AS 9100 certified, you are required to perform FAI's (per section 8.2.4.2) even without any contractual impositions. The 9100 standard lists AS 9102 as a possible option for an FAI process. It is only a "guidance document" until the customer flows it down contractually. When that happens, obviously you must comply with it in its entirety.

Yes, I also see that about 75% (maybe more) of contracts require 9102 compliance.

Did I misunderstand what you posted above?

For the OP. Perhaps you should consider becoming dual registered with both AS and ISO. With dual registration and a properly worded scope statement you can exclude 8.2.4.2 from your non aerospace work.

For the OP. Perhaps you should consider becoming dual registered with both AS and ISO. With dual registration and a properly worded scope statement you can exclude 8.2.4.2 from your non aerospace work.

I am wondering, if your are Registered/Certified to AS9100 it also includes ISO9001. I am also thinking that even though AS has more requirements than that of ISO, it still stays in the context of ISO9001:2000, which would only allow exclusions from Section 7.

Am I missing something here?

I am wondering, if your are Registered/Certified to AS9100 it also includes ISO9001. I am also thinking that even though AS has more requirements than that of ISO, it still stays in the context of ISO9001:2000, which would only allow exclusion from Section 7.

Am I missing something here?

Our AS 9100 cert lists ISO and AS.

I believe that if your scope statement was worded such that the AS specific requirements only apply to aerospace products whereas the ISO requirements apply to all products, then you could exclude 8.2.4.2 for the industrial products since it is an AS specific clause. Clear as mud, eh?

Correct me if I am wrong.

Our AS 9100 cert lists ISO and AS.

I believe that if your scope statement was worded such that the AS specific requirements only apply to aerospace products whereas the ISO requirements apply to all products, then you could exclude 8.2.4.2 for the industrial products since it is an AS specific clause. Clear as mud, eh?

Correct me if I am wrong.

I am not saying you are wrong here, but even though it is specific to AS, which incorporates ISO, allowable exclusions (ISO) are from Section 7, so how could you exclude 8.2.4.2 (Section 8)? I am still a little :confused: (Not the first time.)

I am not saying you are wrong here, but even though it is specific to AS, which incorporates ISO, allowable exclusions (ISO) are from Section 7, so how could you exclude 8.2.4.2 (Section 8)? I am still a little :confused: (Not the first time.)

If it is legit, it would not be a true exclusion per the standard's definition. The industrial products would be excluded from the AS 9100 specific requirements because of the way the scope statement was worded.

It makes sense to me although I am not 100% sure it would fly.

I would like to see that type of Exclusion Statement with justification.

I would like to see that type of Exclusion Statement with justification.

Yep, that might be a tough sell.

Exclusion may have been a poor choice of words.

What I have seen is a dual registration where the registration cert clearly shows both AS9100B and ISO 9001:2000. Then in the scope statement it said something like "AS9100B applies to work cells 9 & 10, and ISO 9001:2000 applies to all other areas of the company". This was for a large machine shop. Indeed, they did so carefully deliniate the two areas and only applied AS9100B to those two work cells and ISO to the remainimg eight cells. When ISO work spilled over into those two cells, AS rules were applied (this was rare though). No AS work was permitted elsewhere.

I performed the internal audit at that shop. They had been so registered for several years with no kick from the registration/surveillance auditor.

Just curious: Could you provide me the who is the Registrar that would allow such exclusion that is surely not part of Section 7 (ISO9001)? I am still a little confused here, just want some clarification.

There is no exclusion.

Jim is saying that if the scope statement on the combo certification is worded properly, the FAI clause in the AS 9100 standard would not apply to the industrial type products because they would fall under the ISO certification's scope instead where there is no FAI clause.

It still amazes me, that a company would identify specific cells to specific work (Segregation of specific products or groups). I guess the next question that I would ask:

What are the guarantees that commercial/industrial product won't be manufactured in the other cells?

It still amazes me, that a company would identify specific cells to specific work (Segregation of specific products or groups).

Yeah, I agree. It is hard to make any assumptions though without knowing the details of their operation.

I came from the auto industry, ten years ago, where we lived the PPAP dream and really came to rely on it as a confirmation AND a baseline for things like tool wear and such. As a result, I see FAI as a value adding and risk avoidance activity. As you indicated above, I would find it hard to justify NOT performing an FAI on a new product or following a change.

What are the guarantees that commercial/industrial product won't be manufactured in the other cells?

Low hanging fruit for an auditor………………:notme:

Low hanging fruit for an auditor………………:notme:

That is my point exactly. How would someone respond to that obvious question?

Auditor's question: Show me the guarantee.

They had it tightly controlled. No aerospace work was performed outside of those two cells, and any non aerospace work performed in those two cells followed areospace procedures. I found three examples non aerospace work performed in those two cells in the past year, and all were performed to aerospace requirments, including FAI.

I thought there would be low hanging fruit but didn't find any.

I have a question, please help clarify:

AS9100 is based on and includes ISO 9001, the only additions are whats worded in bold italic text which apply to the aerospace industry (see 1.1 General). With 8.2.4.2 being in bold italic text does that not mean it only applies to the aerospace product and not the industrial/commercial product regardless of the registration scope, so long as, the registration says you are in compliance with AS9100:2004 and ISO 9001:2000 or AS9100 based on and including ISO 9001:2000?

:confused:Or am I incorrect in my thinking?