AS9100 Clause 8.2.4.2 - First Article Inspection (FAI) - How do you comply?

[alrtorrro]

AS9100: First Article Inspection

Regarding AS9100 paragraph 8.2.4.2, how are others in the industry implementing this section?
Can an organization simply write a procedure detailing a simple FAI for those customers who do not require compliance to AS9102 and still be compliant to AS9100?
For example, if I were to write into our manufacturing process to do a FAI at the end of the manufactuing process and include the key characteristics, would this be enough to satisfy the requirement?

 

[BadgerMan]

We were certified last November and our documented FAI process does not comply with AS9102 but it does comply with the paragraph you quoted from AS9100a.

My understanding is that AS9102 is only for use as a guide at this point unless it is flowed down contractually.

Any other experiences?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Right on the mark

BadgerMan, you are 100 % correct. Unless contractually mandated by your customer, compliance with AS9102 is optional.

I would just like to share that FAI and AS9102 have been subject of many discussions at the AAQG, EAQG APAQG and IAQG meetings. A revised, clearer AS9102 is expected to be released shortly to solve some of the difficulties aerospace suppliers have been encountering.

 

[mstevens]

Sidney,
Been hearing about a new release of AS9102 for a while now, any news?

Thx

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Yes. The rev.a of 9102 has been ballotted and approved as far as I know.

I believe that the delay has to do with the two other Sectors involved, ie, Europe and Asia, since they want to have the Standard adopted worldwide.

Next September 8-11 during the next AAQG meeting in Montreal, I believe that they should have an update of when the Rev. A of 9102 and Rev. B of AS9100 should be released.

Hope this helps.

 

[mstevens]

Yes this information is very helpful, thank you!

 

[Tom a]

as9102a

i have been tasked to implement this standard for a variety of customers, i feel it could be quite some task getting our inspectors on board. How have others found the implementation process, there does seem an excess of information required it feels like we are re-qualifying rather than doing FAI.

 

[BadgerMan]

it feels like we are re-qualifying rather than doing FAI.

Are customers requesting a full FAI IAW AS9102a for products already in production? So far, our customers have only requested 9102 compliant FAI's for mature products when there are changes. Otherwise, the original FAI was satisfactory.

 

[Tom a]

fai requirement

The requirements of AS9102 sheeets 1-3 cover all aspects i.e raw materials, other sub-assemblies, sub contract approvals. The old style FAIR's which we carried out on a daily basis do not seem to be adequate any longer, it has moved away from a full dimensional check and in my view is starting to resemble a qualification package which we would submit prior to flight of our components. I have been very pleased to see the changes due to issue A of the spec which has made it at least workable but still quite a task to convince our inspectors that all the additional information that they will need to complete these forms is valid. Are your customers happy with you just supplying the change information and leaving the other sections blank? i know that one of our suplliers would require all the additional info.

 

[BadgerMan]

Are your customers happy with you just supplying the change information and leaving the other sections blank? i know that one of our suplliers would require all the additional info.

We have many products, and associated derivatives, that have been in production for years. In fact, we have many designs dating back to the 1960’s. If a customer wanted a full AS9102 FAI on one of those products, we would prepare a quote for the service and I am sure he would end up changing his mind. However, if/when changes occur, we do an FAI on the changed characteristics.