|
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 Elsmar Cove Forums
 AS 9100
 AS9102
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: AS9102 |
|
dj unregistered |
posted 12 July 2001 09:09 AM
 
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? IP: Logged |
|
BadgerMan Forum Wizard Posts: 10 |
posted 12 July 2001 09:44 AM
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! IP: Logged |
|
dj Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 5 |
posted 13 July 2001 10:24 AM
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).] IP: Logged |
|
BadgerMan Forum Wizard Posts: 10 |
posted 13 July 2001 10:50 AM
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. IP: Logged |
|
dj Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 5 |
posted 17 July 2001 09:52 AM
We must be the only two people out here. IP: Logged |
|
BadgerMan Forum Wizard Posts: 10 |
posted 17 July 2001 10:57 AM
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? IP: Logged |
|
Aeroman unregistered |
posted 17 July 2001 03:05 PM
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. IP: Logged |
|
Aeroman unregistered |
posted 17 July 2001 03:07 PM
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. IP: Logged |
|
BadgerMan Forum Wizard Posts: 10 |
posted 17 July 2001 03:25 PM
Hey, thanks for your input. I have heard the same rumblings too. How do you think an APQP type document will fit into the scheme? It seems like that area is already partially covered by the RTCA documents DO-178 for software and DO-254 for hardware. Our design control/advanced quality planning system is based on a combination of ISO/AS and the aforementioned requirements. IP: Logged |
|
dj Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 5 |
posted 18 July 2001 12:23 PM
Question for Aeroman? I know this isn't ISO related but I just needed to ask. Does your name have any significance with regards to a certain rock group that just got inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame? Or, is it just aerospace related? IP: Logged |
|
dj Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 5 |
posted 19 July 2001 09:17 AM
We started our in-depth review yesterday. Had a meeting for 1.74 hours and only made it through 5.6.11. We're just going through listing what we currently do and are also listing our interpretations of the AS9102 standard. We're then going to present these to our customers and see if they'll accept what we're currently doing as meeting the intent of the standard. We have received another spec requirement from a French customer for EN9102. I haven't been able to find that on the internet but I'm assuming it's Europe's version of AS9102. Anyone know for sure? If so, are there any slight differences? IP: Logged |
|
dj Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 5 |
posted 19 July 2001 09:20 AM
Re: Companies certified to AS9100 I haven't heard of any but haven't really looked either. IP: Logged |
|
Donn unregistered |
posted 26 July 2001 07:44 PM
Apparently these people are certified to AS9100: 1999 http://www.malcams.com/qc/ IP: Logged |
|
pokie unregistered |
posted 03 August 2001 10:26 AM
There is a company in Dayton, Oh that has introduced a web-based FAI tool that helps develop the FAI package. The tool is being implemented by a couple of the OEMs to drive the marriage between design and quality. The system lets both dimensional and spec requirments to be consolidated using Intelligent document technology and then offers results reporting and auto evaluation of results for conformance. IP: Logged |
|
BadgerMan Forum Wizard Posts: 10 |
posted 03 August 2001 10:36 AM
What is the name of the company? Did they develop this tool with the intention of marketing it or is it a home-grown component of their quality system? IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4367 |
posted 07 August 2001 05:37 AM
quote:You folks can help by telling people about the forums! IP: Logged |
|
pokie unregistered |
posted 17 August 2001 05:27 PM
Cohesia's product is a commercial offering in process. You can find out about the company at www.cohesia.com. IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Please Visit the new Elsmar Cove Forums! All these threads are there and much more!
Main Site Search 
