Aerospace Hardware Revision Control



We are a supplier to Boeing Commercial and are requiring our suppliers provide the revision levels of the hardware (rivets, nuts, bolts, springs, etc.) we are asking them quote and/or to supply. The standard is "to the most current revision", however we are finding that the most current is not always available. I was also told by a Boeing employee that rev level control does not apply to NAs or MS but only BACB hardware which seems contrary to everything I've read:frust:. A few questions:

1. Is anyone having problems procuring the most up to date hardware?
2. How are you administering rev control for hardware at your facility?
3. Are you imposing rev control for MS and NAS hardware? If not, what is your rationale for not implementing?

Thanks in advance.

Dan Johnson

I'll take a stab at this.

Harware is generally not tracked by a "revision" level. The technical standards used to produce the hardware is.

That said, it is generally not required to have the revision of said standard(s) accompanying the hardware. What is required is traceability from the original manufacturer, through the supplier, to the end user.

As an AS company, you should be auditing your suppliers, whether they are a parts distributer or the manufacturer to ensure compliance with the appropriate standard. That means pulling a batch of bolt XYZ, reviewing all associated paperwork, tracing it back through your supplier and ensuring the original manufacturer is a company certified to produce such hardware and there is objective evidence.

Now, if for some reason, hardware produced under the latest standard :"is not available", I would suggest some serious questions be asked of:
#1) Boeing. Does the design criteria (engineering) specifically call out that the fasteners be manufactured under a specific revision of the applicable standard? Because I have news for you: A Boeing 737-900ER being currently produced is covered under the same TCDS as the 737-100 produced in 1967. The same NAS 1100 series bolt used in that 1967 aircraft meets the same (revised) standards currently used.
#2) The supplier. If harware manufactured under the most current revision is not available, has anyone done the research to determine if there is any substative difference? Does the hardware produced under production standard ABC revision 27, since superceded by revision 28 still comply with the actual NAS hardware standard, such as NAS1100? It probably does.

The bottom line is that everyone involved with this giant paperchase needs to get their ducks in a row, determine what traceability is actually required under what standard and if that requiremnent has been met.
Top Bottom