Grandfathering assemblies under FAI - Aerospace suppliers

I have two aerospace asssemblies that were designed and built late 80's / early 90's when AS9102 didn't exist. Now I am being issued a corrective action as I don't have AS9102 FAI data for these parts. I have asked for and received permission from my customer to grandfather these parts in. HOWEVER, they are now requesting us to go back and do a full AS9102 FAI on these, just in case their customer wants to review the information. I haven't gone back to them yet but my response will be "show me da' money!". This wasn't part of the initial contract so they are asking for additional activity that wasn't quoted.

Have any of you aerospace suppliers out there had to deal with old legacy parts and new AS9102 requirements? What did your customer say? How did you handle the situation? Is there anything I'm missing, such as a legacy / grandfathering requirements somewhere?

Re: Grandfathering assemblies under FAI

Hi,
I appreciate your situation.After many years of marraige, some one is asking your marraige certificate and as you don't have that, you have to marry again.

I fully agree with you and I overlook such parts during audit considering the "grand fathering" ( I learned this terminology last year in an audit in MA).Forcing this, during audit may not add value to system but this is a requirement from your custome.Your customer may be 2nd tier or 3rd tier supplier and under pressure from their customer to meet purchase requirements-"all parts need to have FAI report" (may be).Just try to find out how your customer will meet this requirement.

Re: Grandfathering assemblies under FAI

May I add a thought?

AS9102 is considered a guidance document and as such does not add requirements.

You did not mention if you are registered to ISO 9001 or to AS9100. First Article Inspection is a requirement of AS9100, but often is also a customer requirement under ISO 9001.

In AS9100B, FAI must be performed on a representative sample of any first run, and must be repeated, all or in part, any time the process is changed such that it invalidates the prior FAI.

AS9102 adds (remember this is a guidance document) that FAI must be repeated if it has been at least two years since the last production run.

I think you should comply with your customer's request, and allow for FAI in the future when bidding on such heritage parts.

Re: Grandfathering assemblies under FAI

Big Jim said:

AS9102 is considered a guidance document and as such does not add requirements.

Click to expand...

When 9102 is invoked as a contractual requirement, it is not a guidance document. It is mandatory.

To the OP's question, if you have records of FAI, even though they might not comply with the latest 9102 requirements, they should suffice. If you were not required to perform FAI, when you signed the contract, but now the customer wants records of FAI, then, they are introducing NEW requirements, to what you should require payment for.

Also, note the 9102 FAQ section in the IAQG website. This might give you an out.

B7. Question:
If a baseline FAI exists but is to a system used prior to 9102, must the baseline FAI be updated to 9102 prior to performing a new partial FAI.
B7. Response:
9102 is not retroactive. A 9102 partial may be completed using the original completed baseline.

Click to expand...

D1. Question:
Paragraph 5.3 states in part - FAI requirements may also be satisfied by previously approved FAI performed on identical characteristics of similar parts produced by identical means. How similar do the parts have to be?
D1. Response:
If a series of parts are made using the same processes and the parts are identical except for a few characteristics, a complete FAI can be done on one part and for the others, account for the unique characteristics. On form 3 for the "other parts", record the unique characteristics and refer back to the full FAI for the identical characteristics. The key is traceability and that all characteristics are accounted for.

Click to expand...

Re: Grandfathering assemblies under FAI

Sidney Vianna said:

When 9102 is invoked as a contractual requirement, it is not a guidance document. It is mandatory.

To the OP's question, if you have records of FAI, even though they might not comply with the latest 9102 requirements, they should suffice. If you were not required to perform FAI, when you signed the contract, but now the customer wants records of FAI, then, they are introducing NEW requirements, to what you should require payment for.

Also, note the 9102 FAQ section in the IAQG website. This might give you an out.

Click to expand...

Sidney,

Remember that 9102 requires (suggests?) that FAI be repeated if it has been two years since the last production run. I made the assumption that many of these military heritage parts would fit that catagory. Perhaps I should have asked.

But the customer is asking for the FAI. Is it worth fighting them over it when winning the battle could cost them future business? This would be a good case of choosing your battles carefully.

Thanks to all.

In this case it is customer requirement.So even though there are scopes for fighting,it will be in the interest of the company to do the FAI and meet customer requirement.

As mentioned by others AS9102 only comes into play when required by contract. That being said since you performed a contract review and are compliant with Para 7.2 of the AS9100 standard if you did not take exception to the FAI clause then you must perform a FAI to the AS9102 requirement.
I would just start from scratch as the re-baselining could be benificial IMO but what you can do is take your current FAI data and only perform reinsection of the elements that are missing that are need to bring it up to the AS9102 standard you are now required to meet.

Re: Grandfathering assemblies under FAI

Big Jim said:

You did not mention if you are registered to ISO 9001 or to AS9100. First Article Inspection is a requirement of AS9100, but often is also a customer requirement under ISO 9001.

Click to expand...

Registered to ISO 9001 but not AS9100 (yet). FAI to AS9102 is a customer requirement now, but not on the initial purchase order for the products in question.

Big Jim said:

In AS9100B, FAI must be performed on a representative sample of any first run, and must be repeated, all or in part, any time the process is changed such that it invalidates the prior FAI.

Click to expand...

Aye, there's the rub! There was a 'watered-down' FAI done for the initial units. Remember though, this was pre-AS9100 & AS9102. The FAI done was not nearly to the level as required now. It is unknown if current processes invalidate the prior FAI because of the varying format.

Big Jim said:

AS9102 adds (remember this is a guidance document) that FAI must be repeated if it has been at least two years since the last production run.

Click to expand...

N/A - These have been in constant production over the years with less than 2 years between production runs.

Big Jim said:

I think you should comply with your customer's request, and allow for FAI in the future when bidding on such heritage parts.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with performing a full AS9102-style FAI but it is not going to be a freebie for my customer. If they want it, they will have to pay for it.

Re: Grandfathering assemblies under FAI

Big Jim said:

But the customer is asking for the FAI. Is it worth fighting them over it when winning the battle could cost them future business? This would be a good case of choosing your battles carefully.

Click to expand...

If this was a 1 or 2 hour task, fine, the customer gets a freebie. However, I just finished doing a full-blown AS9012 style FAI for a similar product. There was a large amount of hours envolved with doing this. I work for a business, not a charity.

Re: Grandfathering assemblies under FAI

Sidney Vianna said:

To the OP's question, if you have records of FAI, even though they might not comply with the latest 9102 requirements, they should suffice.

Click to expand...

Actually, I do believe we supplied our customer with a minimal FAI report way back when the products were first delivered. Seems they misplaced the report though....

Sidney Vianna said:

If you were not required to perform FAI, when you signed the contract, but now the customer wants records of FAI, then, they are introducing NEW requirements, to what you should require payment for.

Click to expand...

The customer is looking for an AS9102-style FAI. It was never a contracted requirement so I agree with you Sidney, it is a new requirement that the customer must now pay for.