Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo Especially for content not in the forum
Such as files in the Cove "Members" Directory
Social Distancing - It's not just YOUR life - It's ALL of OUR lives!
Me <——————— 6 Feet ———————-> You

AS9100 - Accountability for Job Travelers

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#11
It seems to me that the auditor's expectations are correct and in line with what the standard requires and FAA Regulatory requirements.

It is up to the organization to devise processes that are cost effective, while complying with the standard and regulations.

If I were auditing the process and the traveler calls for 35 pieces and I see 38 pieces being realized, I would raise the issue as well, and I believe that any competent aerospace lead auditor would.

As already mentioned this requirement comes from the need to prevent bogus parts being introduced in the supply chain. While you know that does not happen there, the auditor's job is to seek verifiable evidence that is the case.
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#12
Correct.

Where we have losses, these are known and currently acceptable for the company. The production manager explained that he typically authorizes making a few extra pieces that will be used for setup. This however isn't explicitly documented on the traveler or noted in job reporting.

So... I know why the auditor is writing this up. But I also can't believe we need to document this to death. In most of these instances we are talking about a few dollars worth of scrap metal when all is said and done. If I have to spend 2 hours writing up nonconformance reports every time we toss 2 pieces used for setup, it just gets way out of hand.
Roo,

It seems that your NCR process is overkill for this.

Study clause 8.3 carefully and you'll see that you are already conforming to most of it.

But you are not recording the nature of the product nonconformities so they can be considered for corrective action. You could do this in a table instead of having a separate NCR for each.

Controlled conditions are required for production and this means the Production Manager has established the requirements during planning and can show that production is fulfilling those requirements intentionally with definitive methods of correction.

Even though you may think what you have is okay, it seems flaky from here.

John
 
H

HoppyRoo

#13
Haha...

I didn't say it was perfect. I agree, it's on the flaky side. ;)

That said, does this really warrant major nonconformance status?

Btw... thanks for your help guys. Your input makes this a lot more clear to me.
 
#14
Wow. Remind me never to go for AS9100. I'm no expert on this standard, but it seems pretty unrealistic to me in most production environments.

As I understand it, you have a shop order for X number of pcs. You have several operations which those pcs. go thru to be produced. During production you may loose a few pcs. to setup. So you start with a few more blanks. What about a situation where your production quantity is controlled by the raw material, ie; a 55 lb. bag, 6 foot bar stock, sheet of steel? It is very common at my place that we want to make 100 pcs., but end up with 125 because of the material. They call it yield.

The approach I would look at is to consider the completed order, not the interim operations. So if you where supposed to make 35 pcs., how many where finally completed? When it is different than 35, then account for that. Trying to account at each operation would drive anyone nuts. Thank god its not my standard. Good luck.
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#15
Haha...

I didn't say it was perfect. I agree, it's on the flaky side. ;)

That said, does this really warrant major nonconformance status?

Btw... thanks for your help guys. Your input makes this a lot more clear to me.
Roo,

Yes, it's major especially when the auditor sees no evidence of any recognition that the lack of controlled conditions is a problem that needs to be fixed.

If your Production Manager has a convincing plan of action by the closing meeting you may be able to downgrade it from major to minor.

Good luck

John
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#16
Wow. Remind me never to go for AS9100. I'm no expert on this standard, but it seems pretty unrealistic to me in most production environments.
What is so difficult to have a page at the end of each traveler to record how many, which operation, reason for and disposition of parts that have been dropped from the order? As an example of a simple way to keep product accountability.

Once again, it is up to each organization to devise cost effective ways to comply with requirements. Sometimes, people overthink the requirements and overkill the process. Then, unjustifiably, blame is placed on the standard and/or the the auditor.

On a daily basis, small aerospace businesses comply with this requirement and don't feel burdened.
 
H

HoppyRoo

#17
Thanks for all the help again guys... :agree1:

I can talk about all this to the auditor again today. I don't even think our ERP allows you to close a job unless the numbers match up at the end. So we "do" know what happened to the parts. I think it's just a little sloppy on the paperwork our on the floor.

We'll see.
 
#18
What is so difficult to have a page at the end of each traveler to record how many, which operation, reason for and disposition of parts that have been dropped from the order? As an example of a simple way to keep product accountability.

Once again, it is up to each organization to devise cost effective ways to comply with requirements. Sometimes, people overthink the requirements and overkill the process. Then, unjustifiably, blame is placed on the standard and/or the the auditor.

On a daily basis, small aerospace businesses comply with this requirement and don't feel burdened.
It sounds like the original poster did just that. They made a few extra in operation 1 and scrapped 3 pcs as a normal course of production. But for some reason it wasn't good enough because they didn't document a "reason."
 
#19
But I also can't believe we need to document this to death.
I am curious as to what your quality manual and or procedure for production control say about these quantities. I have seen verbage about running extra parts due to attrition and setup scrap implicitly allowed in the procedure. If yours has that, this might all go away. Else, there is a corrective action.
 

suffelde

Involved In Discussions
#20
I don't know if this too late for you or not, but here goes. Similar to the above post, put this on your traveler at each inspection point (self-inspect or otherwise)

Quantity Accept: _____ Quantity Reject_______
Approved by:____________ Date:___________

Document in your QMS how you identify rejected parts ( a suggestion is to tie it to the traveler number and op i.e Traveler XXXX - OP 35 )

Document the dispo in your MRB Log.

Track total rejects for that part number in your CoPQ Log.

Have a separate section in your MRB log that indicates that a financial analysis is/was performed and address/rate the appropriate risk.

Tie this risk into your risk analysis as applicable. Incidentally, the risk rating is not static. It should be addressed periodically.

If you can get this set up prior to the auditor leaving plus associate it with a risk rating, you might get the finding of non-conformance down-graded. Let us know how this turns out for you.
 
Top Bottom