|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums |
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums |
|
 The Old Elsmar Cove Forums
 APQP and PPAP
 Re-PSW if a machine is moved
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Re-PSW if a machine is moved |
|
Bill Smith Forum Contributor Posts: 20 |
posted 06 February 1999 12:05 PM
   
We are planning to move several molding machines from one side of the plant to the other side of the plant and the question of "do we need to re-submit for PSW approval has come up. The PPAP manual requires that we contact our "Part approval Authority" and if they do not require a PSW we would need a part number specific waiver. OK that's easy, now the problem is that we have never PSW'd to a specific machine only to a specific tonnage of machine and the result is that we have almost 500 part numbers that would require a specific waiver. And we all know the "The Customer" is not going to issue 500 waivers for this. Thanks in advance Bill Smith ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Howard Atkins Forum Wizard Posts: 202 |
posted 07 February 1999 12:57 AM
According to the PPAP manual "When PPAP submission is reguired" clause 8 "Production from tooling and equipment transfered to a different plant location....." I understand this as meaning a different plant and not a change of location in the same plant. The reason INHO is that a different plant might work in a different manner etc, whereas if the machine is moved inside the same plant the overall system is the same. "OK that's easy, now the problem is that we have never PSW'd to a specific machine only to a specific tonnage of machine and the result is that we have almost 500 part numbers that would require a specific waiver." I have never been sure that the PPAP approval aplies to a specific molding machine. This is a problem as it means that according to this thinking you should supply PPAP for all machines in your plant to enable you the flexibility of production. This INHO is madness. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Bill Smith Forum Contributor Posts: 20 |
posted 07 February 1999 12:24 PM
Thanks for the help Howard.I aggree that clause # 8 does not apply here We feel that clause # 6 is where we might run into a problem. It refers to the rearrangement of existing tooling or equipment. Would molding machines fall into this category as "equipment" ? That is the question we are worried about.
IP: Logged |
|
Howard Atkins Forum Wizard Posts: 202 |
posted 08 February 1999 12:07 AM
I missed clause 6 sorry. I dont know. We have not related to this maybe we are wrong. Can any one else help us. I have a feeling that no one really knows. You could always ask your registrar but this is dangerous. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 13 February 1999 07:33 AM
Moving equipment *can* require you to re-PPAP. But as to the waiver, ask for one waiver for a range of part numbers. I doubt moving injection molding equipment will be a big deal. A big press, like a metal press, is more sensitive (differences in plant floor foundation / vibration / tool chatter issues, to name a few). Does this help? IP: Logged |
|
Batman Forum Contributor Posts: 111 |
posted 21 February 1999 11:01 AM
I have a real life story regarding moving equipment. We rearranged a portion of our injection molding department into a cell. Maintenance moved two 60 ton presses. One was "dropped" when a chain broke. It didn't hit the floor, but snapped tight against another chain. One of the operators nearby happened to see it. Nothing was said, and the machine started up fine, and parts were manufactured. Unfortunately, due to one of the ways (guides) being knocked out of alignment, a little flash had developed that broke off during shipping, causing a "chip" on a significant surface. We had a return. My investigation luckily found this operator. Now, when we move equipment, we do a layout and capability study, as a minimum. As good suppliers in the automotive world, we also now tell our customer we are moving a piece of equipment, and request a PPAP submission level. Here's my take. After moving equipment, aren't you interested to see if anything changed? You may miss something that may influence the customer, but at least make the attempt. Knowing you are going to do this, you will already have information for the customer showing nothing changed. We have never been granted a waiver without some evidence - layout, PPAP data, etc. - that the parts did not change. Obviously this is easier if you have 500 parts for one customer on that machine. If you make 500 parts for 500 customers, it could get a little more difficult qualifying. Perhaps a couple of capability studies for a couple of parts sent to all those customers would suffice. At the very least, you should generate some information on the parts from their first run to satisfy yourself. IP: Logged |
|
dewie Forum Contributor Posts: 44 |
posted 19 November 1999 12:19 PM
I had an experience in electrical world. Once the operator bumped with one of the machine, the final characteristics were failed since the bending leg of capacitor was slightly shifted. All of the lot was rejected. Good luck that it was not sent to the customers. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 19 November 1999 12:32 PM
With this all said, every 'move' should be considered with respect to what it is in it's entirety. If you're moving a simple drill press it's doubtful that you have to 'go overboard'. If it's a 60 ton press, I would say you would want to check things out somewhat more thoroughly, so to speak. Let us NOT forget common sense! IP: Logged |
|
David Guffey Forum Contributor Posts: 49 |
posted 19 November 1999 03:38 PM
Marc, how can you use the term "common sense" in any way related to QS-9000 without blushing? Of course, you might be, we just can't see that on the net. As much as I hate to admit it, it does make good business and quality assurance sense to re-layout after the move of a major piece of equipment. The horror stories above are ample illustration. But, you might be pleasantly surprised at your customer(s). Once you've done your layout and you've determined all is well (or not and you fix it), let the customer know. If you can report what you've done and that all is well, you probably won't be asked to resubmit. Waivers no doubt will be granted. But, if you don't ask, you can bet your registrar will challenge you. IP: Logged |
|
Howard Atkins Forum Wizard Posts: 202 |
posted 22 November 1999 03:12 PM
After a long discussion today with an SQE his feeling is for moveing an injection machine 10 feet no reppap, 50 feet then yes. In the same mood there was a previous discussion on whether you need to PPAP each different machine that you run the injection on. Here again he agreed that this was a grey area but his feeling was that if you change machine if you do not re PPAP then how do you know that the product is the same. I think that if we start to flood the market with PPAPs on each machine the cuastomer will start to refuse to accept the parts as he has to rePPAP his part. ther is no end to this. IP: Logged |
|
Laura M Forum Contributor Posts: 299 |
posted 22 November 1999 04:36 PM
Can the SQE in the next division/company say if you move it 2 feet you need to re-PPAP? Not sure, but I don't see the significance between 10 and 50. I've heard others state that if the PFD or PCP doesn't change, don't submit at all. And then an auditor will want to see a waiver!! Yikes! When we moved 150 injection mold machines we showed the customer our re-PPAP plan. Basically the first mold run in the machine received a full PPAP. After that, other molds got "mini-qual's" basically verifying that the parameters previously used were still good. Kept a matrix and it "forced" us to do a better job at scheduling because we would only run certain molds in certain machines. Not easy (and production didn't like it)...but if you are of the mind to reduce variation, then its a good thing. I think "family" PPAP's were submitted with a copy of the matrix. I can understand wanting to verify no impact on the part..and our SQE had alot of common sense..so he worked with us to make it an affordable plan. Good luck. IP: Logged |
|
Howard Atkins Forum Wizard Posts: 202 |
posted 01 January 2000 11:52 PM
The 3rd edition PPAP handbook seems to solve this problem. I.3.3 situations where customer notification is not required. Table I.3.3 2. Tool movement within the same plant (used in equivalent equipment.... IP: Logged |
|
Mark Ashley unregistered |
posted 21 January 2000 11:55 AM
According AIAG, 3rd Edition, PPAP manual, resubmission is not required when moving a process/machine within the same building nor are you required to contact the customer. Page 14, Table 1.3.3 IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
UBB 5.45c
Main Site Search 
