FAA approvals - Electronics assembly company - More work if they get FAA approvals?

[DannyK]

An electronics assembly company has been told that they can get more work if they had FAA approvals. The work would involve manufacturing electronic assemblies. No repair or overhaul is involved.

Any ideas of what the approvals may be?

Can anyone provide directions to where more information can be provided?

Many thanks,
Danny

[Wes Bucey]

Originally Posted by DannyK

An electronics assembly company has been told that they can get more work if they had FAA approvals. The work would involve manufacturing electronic assemblies. No repair or overhaul is involved.

Any ideas of what the approvals may be?

Can anyone provide directions to where more information can be provided?

Many thanks,
Danny

Sounds to me like you may be aiming toward Parts Manufacturer Approval and Parts Approval Holder status from the FAA.
Start here http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert...approvals/pma/
and come back with questions.

Simple answer - it ain't easy, McGee! (but it can be lucrative if you survive the process to get PMA and PAH)

[Blue Tuna]

Hi DannyK

The PMA process is derived from CFR 21.303. This involves two different sides of the FAA house. First you will need to create a "Fabrication Inspection System Manual" (FIS) known to many as a PMA Manual. I have written several of these. The size of this manual exceedes the size of any other quality system manual I have ever written (I have written to both the AS9100 and AS9110 standards). By the way, this manual serves as excellent support documentation for the AS9100. Second, involves the submission of the plans for specific parts you wish to manufacture. Once your FIS is approved you can add to your manufacturing capabilities rather easily. Warning, you will need to grease the wheels of the engineering side of the project with the help of a DER. Otherwise your approval could sit in a state of limbo until the cows come home.

Terry Tolleson

[DannyK]

Terry, Wes

Thanks for the info. I appreciate your quick response.

Danny Kroo

[Al Rosen]

Originally Posted by Blue Tuna

Hi DannyK

The PMA process is derived from CFR 21.303. This involves two different sides of the FAA house. First you will need to create a "Fabrication Inspection System Manual" (FIS) known to many as a PMA Manual. I have written several of these. The size of this manual exceedes the size of any other quality system manual I have ever written (I have written to both the AS9100 and AS9110 standards). By the way, this manual serves as excellent support documentation for the AS9100. Second, involves the submission of the plans for specific parts you wish to manufacture. Once your FIS is approved you can add to your manufacturing capabilities rather easily. Warning, you will need to grease the wheels of the engineering side of the project with the help of a DER. Otherwise your approval could sit in a state of limbo until the cows come home.

Terry Tolleson

I have a different view. I think it can be a lot simpler than you have made it appear. Also, a DER (Designated Engineering Representative) is not needed. If you were to use a designee to greese the skids, a manufacturing Designated Airworthiness Representative would be more helpful. They are more familiar with manufacturing. From FAR 21.303

h) Each holder of a Parts Manufacturer Approval shall establish and maintain a fabrication inspection system that ensures that each completed part conforms to its design data and is safe for installation on applicable type certificated products. The system shall include the following:

(1) Incoming materials used in the finished part must be as specified in the design data.

(2) Incoming materials must be properly identified if their physical and chemical properties cannot otherwise be readily and accurately determined.

(3) Materials subject to damage and deterioration must be suitably stored and adequately protected.

(4) Processes affecting the quality and safety of the finished product must be accomplished in accordance with acceptable specifications.

(5) Parts in process must be inspected for conformity with the design data at points in production where accurate determination can be made. Statistical quality control procedures may be employed where it is shown that a satisfactory level of quality will be maintained for the particular part involved.

(6) Current design drawings must be readily available to manufacturing and inspection personnel, and used when necessary.

(7) Major changes to the basic design must be adequately controlled and approved before being incorporated in the finished part.

(8) Rejected materials and components must be segregated and identified in such a manner as to preclude their use in the finished part.

(9) Inspection records must be maintained, identified with the completed part, where practicable, and retained in the manufacturer's file for a period of at least 2 years after the part has been completed.

Compare this to ISO 9001

[Wes Bucey]

When I said "it ain't easy" I did not mean to imply it was impossible.

First, I can honestly say the nitty gritty of FIS is probably easier than AS9100.

The two big hurdles in my view are

1. The FAA guy who approves or disapproves your organization for PMA is like a God. If he denies your system, the appeals process is completely stacked against you.
2. Getting approval of a specific product to manufacture. There are essentially three routes:
   1. Get permission from an existing manufacturer or approved designer to make duplicate parts
   2. Decide to build an equivalent part (lots of tests and requirements to prove equivalency)
   3. Design a completely new part and get it (the part) approved for installation in an aircraft.

Some companies exist just to design parts (devices, subassemblies, after-market type stuff) and get them approved, but they then farm the work out to exisiting Parts Approval Holders who add the part to their repertoire.

The whole melange of DER and DAR and an incredible number of acronyms can be confusing. The documentation requirements are VERY important and meticulous.

There is one important difference between an FAA certification of a Fabrication Inspection System and an ISO audit - FAA checks to make sure the system is effective. Also, FAA or a DAR checks to make sure the product actually is airworthy. When I was in the aerospace business, we routinely had DARs flying aircraft with our product on board to ensure it worked as it was designed to work - you sure don't see an ISO auditor doing that with products!

Take my advice - if you want to get PMA and become a PAH, spend a little money and hire a consultant who has been through it once or twice to avoid a lot of time-consuming little pitfalls that can stretch a six month process to an 18 month process.

[Blue Tuna]

From my perspective it is more difficult to write to the AS9100 standard, but on the other hand it seems simplier to implement. The PMA approach is less predictable as Wes has pointed out. Plus you are working with two different sides of the FAA. From my experience FAA inspectors have gone out of their way to assist me and my clients in the creation of the FIS. On the other hand the engineering side of the project is much less predictable in my experience.

The dream project is to develop the documentation for a repair station to operate (Part 145), create the FIS (for the manufacturing) and then roll out the AS9100. I had the opportunity to go full cycle with a company not long ago with this approach. By the time the AS9100 certification came around things were clicking very well.

[Al Rosen]

Trying to get PMA by identicality or test and computations is almost impossible. The FAA does not like the responsibility it implies. So, the most expeditious manner is:

1. Establish an FIS.
2. Develop and/or build the part to the customer's spec.
3. Secure a licensing agreement from the customer for PMA.
4. Submit the licensing agreement along with the application letter and prepared "PMA Spplement" to you MIDO(Manufacturing Inspection District Office).

The procedures are described in FAA Order 8110.42a.