The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > National and International Business System Standards > Aerospace and Aviation Standards and Requirements > AS9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

AS9100 and Nadcap vs. NAS412 (FOD program)


Elsmar XML RSS Feed
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links



Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:


ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Standards Organization - ISO Standards and Information

Atul's
Quality Forum Online

Howard's
International Quality Services

Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum

Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology


Related LinkedIn Groups

ISO 9001 for Small Businesses

ISO 9001:2015 Revision Discussions

Information Security Community

Medical Devices Group

Quality and Regulatory Network

FDA (Food and Drugs)

AS91XX Series - Tips and Advice


Related Topic Tags
7.5.1 - control of production & service provision, 7.5.5 - preservation of product, as9100 - aerospace quality management systems, fod (foreign objects and debris), nadcap (nat'l aerospace & defense contractors accred. pgm), nas412 (fod program)
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 4th December 2012, 06:27 PM
Shoes

 
 
Total Posts: 28
Question AS9100 and Nadcap vs. NAS412 (FOD program)

Hello,

The manufactuing Company I work for holds current AS9100 Rev C and Nadcap certificates. An auditor for hire insists the requirements of NAS412 (FOD program) are not completely met by successfully meeting AS9100, paragraphs 7.5.1 and 7.5.5. In my estimation, NAS412 is intended to be tailored to the individual business - only build what you need. We do not install our parts on aircraft, we have an FOD program that prevents product from leaving our plant with FOD in it.
I do not believe the auditor is compentent, his card does not claim any accreditations from anywhere. I emailed his company using their web site email address but it came back as undeliverable.
Any opinions? Has anyone ever had a similar experience?

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 4th December 2012, 07:08 PM
Sidney Vianna's Avatar
Sidney Vianna

 
 
Total Posts: 8,161
Re: AS9100 and Nadcap vs NAS412

Who is this "auditor for hire" auditing for? Is he doing internal audits? Who is flowing down the NAS412 requirements onto your organization?
Sponsored Links

  Post Number #3  
Old 4th December 2012, 07:15 PM
Shoes

 
 
Total Posts: 28
Re: AS9100 and Nadcap vs NAS412

He is auditing for Lockheed. Lockheed's quality requirements cite NAS412.
  Post Number #4  
Old 4th December 2012, 07:29 PM
Sidney Vianna's Avatar
Sidney Vianna

 
 
Total Posts: 8,161
Re: AS9100 and Nadcap vs NAS412

So, he is a customer (2nd party) auditor. I am not familiar with NAS412, but he is correct in stating that conformance (and certification) to AS9100 and Nadcap is no guarantee of FOD-free products. On the other hand, you are correct that conformity with standards normally require a review of it's application and exclude non-applicable requirements.

Typically, the best way to resolve this is to dialogue with the auditor and reason about the applicability of the requirements. Failure to reach an agreement should be followed with a contact to the QA and procurement functions of the customer. After all, enforcement of nonsensical requirements onto suppliers would normally lead to contract renegotiation and potential price increases, assuming that your organization had done proper contract review and assessed and agreed with the customer on the degree of conformance necessary with NAS 412.
Thanks to Sidney Vianna for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #5  
Old 4th December 2012, 08:58 PM
rickpaul01's Avatar
rickpaul01

 
 
Total Posts: 152
Re: AS9100 and Nadcap vs NAS412

The auditor should be able to tell you exactly which requirement of NAS412 you are not complying with.
  Post Number #6  
Old 5th December 2012, 08:48 AM
BadgerMan's Avatar
BadgerMan

 
 
Total Posts: 699
Re: AS9100 and Nadcap vs. NAS412 (FOD program)

It sounds like LMCO is flowing down their quality clause Q4R which requires NAS-412 compliance. It also requires flow down to your sub-tier suppliers when applicable. If this clause does not apply to your products, you need to take exception to it before accepting the contracts/POs.
  Post Number #7  
Old 21st December 2012, 06:54 PM
rickpaul01's Avatar
rickpaul01

 
 
Total Posts: 152
Re: AS9100 and Nadcap vs. NAS412 (FOD program)

The exact document, without the NAS412 label and copyright restrictions is available at: http://www.nafpi.com/nafpiguideline.pdf
  Post Number #8  
Old 22nd December 2012, 04:25 AM
cutsdean

 
 
Total Posts: 28
Re: AS9100 and Nadcap vs. NAS412 (FOD program)

NAS412 is very prescriptive about the elements that must be in place for a FOD programme. We are AS9100 Rev C, but our Lockheed Marting representative required NAS412 compliance which was over and above our AS9100 system.

Even though the NAS412 specification is prescriptive, there is room within the requirements to be creative, but all elements need to be in place. Key elements are tool control, FOD training, FOD reporting and metrics and ideally this should be linked to a 5S scheme.

Also Lockheed have a training DVD which is worth getting and is free as you are a supplier. If all staff sit and watch this training DVD they can be considered FOD awareness trained. The DVD is only 15 mins long.

It took us 12 months to complete our FOD implementation and we were well supported by Lockheed here in the UK. They offered lots of advice and regular reviews to ensure we were heading in the right direction.
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > National and International Business System Standards > Aerospace and Aviation Standards and Requirements > AS9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Is it required to have first AS9100 before obtaining Nadcap? abomonther AS9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 7 28th November 2014 03:20 PM
Future as an AS9100/NADCAP Auditor abnerfurmond AS9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 3 8th April 2014 11:01 PM
Nadcap AC7004 - Going for AS9100? timewilltell AS9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 7 25th June 2013 07:06 PM
Getting NADCAP for wire EDM only (already AS9100) z28tt Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 7 9th April 2010 04:29 PM
PRI - NADCAP Certification requirement - AS9100 audit first before NADCAP audit? Joy AS9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 12 8th September 2009 09:07 AM



The time now is 11:19 PM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


 


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies" -- The Elsmar Cove is *Copyright Free*.
A Peachfarm LLC Internet Property