Following AS9102 for FAI Requirements - Does EVERY Component Need Its Own FAI?

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?

[BadgerMan]

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).]

[BadgerMan]

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.

[BadgerMan]

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.