The Aerospace Industry, in general, relies on First Article Inspection type methodology. And special processes also need to be validated in-house and, as a rule of thumb, go through Nadcap approval.
Hi Sidney, thanks for the reply.
The methodology I am currently working on is a "roadmap" to certification, if you will, for special processes such as additive manufacturing.
From my understanding is that FAI is more for certification of the process (design specific process). As for Nadacap, the audit criteria for AC7110/14 (the additive manufacturing certification) makes little to no mention of machine installation or operational qualification. It is also very focused on process qualification and auxiliary and environmental factors.
I am therefore developing a certification process that goes deeper than the FAI and Nadcap. Below is a high-level roadmap I am theorizing:
Facility qualification -> FAT at machine OEM -> SAT at customer facility -> Installation qualification -> Operational qualification -> Performance qualification (whereby requirements of MMPDS are met statistically) -> AS9100D certification -> Nadcap accreditation -> Process qualification (including FAI for specific design) -> and so forth.
From my understanding of the IQ OQ PQ process as per the medical industry, it aims as the machine specifically, with only the PQ process delving more toward the process.
Would this be an acceptable method for addressing machinery within the aerospace industry?