I am working on some training for our internal auditors to get them up to date on the new revision of the standard and I happened to notice that the following language has been deleted from section 8.2.4 of AS9100B:

The plan shall preclude the acceptance of lots whose samples have known nonconformities.

Is this requirement stated in some other manner in some other place?

What are the ramifications of removing this language?

Is this requirement stated in some other manner in some other place? Not in the standard, but you might have a similar requirement being flown down by a quality clause in a contract. What are the ramifications of removing this language?The clear ramification is that you could have an acceptance criteria other than "C=0", provided it would not induce unacceptable risks. Product complexity and criticality must be assessed.

If Boeing Commercial Aircraft is one of your customers, you need to comply with Form X31764 - Quality Purchasing Data Requirements (http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/supplier/X31764.pdf) , which requires, in part:


Seller's Inspection Options:
A Seller that performs acceptance sampling shall meet the requirements of document ARP9013, "Statistical Product Acceptance Requirements," with minimum protection levels meeting ARP9013 Figure B1. Boeing approval of each revision of Seller's acceptance sampling plan is required prior to use. When statistical process control is used as an option for either in-process or final inspection, the Seller shall satisfy the requirements of Aerospace Recommended Practice ARP9013/3, "Statistical Product Acceptance Requirements
Using Process Control Methods" available at http://www.sae.org/servlets/index. In all cases, inspection requirements identified by engineering drawing or specification take precedence over the inspection requirements defined herein.

I am working on some training for our internal auditors to get them up to date on the new revision of the standard and I happened to notice that the following language has been deleted from section 8.2.4 of AS9100B:

The plan shall preclude the acceptance of lots whose samples have known nonconformities.

Is this requirement stated in some other manner in some other place?

What are the ramifications of removing this language?

It hasn't been moved, it's been deleted. It is allowable under AS9100 Rev C to accept lots with acceptance numbers greater than zero.

I believe the intent was to "ease up" in cases where nonconformities are acceptable. For example, last fall I audited a company that makes leather seats for aircraft. When they purchase hides, they do sampling inspection. There will always be "nonconformities" in the hides. These nonconformities will not end up in product, as the cut pieces are laid out around these areas.

Yes, our Receiving Inspection sampling plan is approved by Boeing and we have numerous OEM contractual requirements governing our use of sampling plans.

I just found this to be interesting as it seemed that the requirement had been somewhat relaxed. Does it maybe take a back seat to contractual requirements because of the expansion of the scope of the standard (Aviation, Space, and Defense)?

Does it maybe take a back seat to contractual requirements because of the expansion of the scope of the standard (Aviation, Space, and Defense)?Yes, just like the deleted requirement for periodic validation of CoC's and test reports.
But we added "risk management" as a requirement to the standard.:rolleyes:

It hasn't been moved, it's been deleted. It is allowable under AS9100 Rev C to accept lots with acceptance numbers greater than zero.

I believe the intent was to "ease up" in cases where nonconformities are acceptable. For example, last fall I audited a company that makes leather seats for aircraft. When they purchase hides, they do sampling inspection. There will always be "nonconformities" in the hides. These nonconformities will not end up in product, as the cut pieces are laid out around these areas.

I'm not sure that's a good example, because the criteria for nonconformity are applied to the finished goods and not to the incoming material. In other words, if the company in question (before the change in the standard) had documented their incoming criteria with foreknowledge that defects in the hides wouldn't be present in finished products, they would have been in conformance with the prior version of the standard.

I'm not sure that's a good example, because the criteria for nonconformity are applied to the finished goods and not to the incoming material. In other words, if the company in question (before the change in the standard) had documented their incoming criteria with foreknowledge that defects in the hides wouldn't be present in finished products, they would have been in conformance with the prior version of the standard.

OK, here's another one then. A company is using sampling at receiving for high-volume injection molded parts. Now and then a short shot is produced by the supplier which causes the part to have missing features. If the company has mistake-proofed their assembly process to prevent assembly or to detect this type of defect, would they still want to reject the entire lot at receiving?