AS9100 and Nadcap vs. NAS412 (FOD program)

S

Shoes

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?
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
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?
 
S

Shoes

Re: AS9100 and Nadcap vs NAS412

He is auditing for Lockheed. Lockheed's quality requirements cite NAS412.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
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.
 

rickpaul01

Involved in HankyPanky
Re: AS9100 and Nadcap vs NAS412

The auditor should be able to tell you exactly which requirement of NAS412 you are not complying with.
 
B

BadgerMan

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.
 

cutsdean

Involved In Discussions
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.
 

rickpaul01

Involved in HankyPanky
The objective of the FOD Prevention Guideline is to promote ground and
flight safety and the preservation of private and national assets. This process is intended to be used as a
baseline for FOD prevention. Users are encouraged to apply the contents of this guideline to suit their​
particular product, company and or government agenc y.
 
Top Bottom