AS9100 Clause 8.5.1.3 Production Run Verification

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Do we need to do a formal documented FAI if we change machines (within the same work center)? In our experience, changing machines in this manner would not invalidate the original results because we consider the machines to be equivalent and we are checking the setup and doing in process inspection to verify that the parts meet print each time we run the part.
In the IAQG SCMH, a similar question related to AS9102 was answered as: "....9102 - 4.6.f.1 states: A change in manufacturing source(s), process(es), inspection method(s), location of
manufacture, tooling or materials, that can potentially affect fit, form or function. The key wording is "potentially affect fit, form or function". If you have good rationale supporting a position that the change doesn't "potentially affect fit, form or function" (and you can convince your customer) an updated FAI is not required. The move distance isn't a factor. Record the reason for Partial FAI on field No.14 of Form 1.
 

Eredhel

Quality Manager
If they are just doing AS9100 they aren't required to do AS9102 as well unless it's driven by the customer are they? After going through AS9100 I only found the FAI specifics in the Annex under suggested tools and resources. Want to make sure I'm getting my head around the standard well since we are about to pursue AS9100 ourselves.
 

Big Jim

Admin
If they are just doing AS9100 they aren't required to do AS9102 as well unless it's driven by the customer are they? After going through AS9100 I only found the FAI specifics in the Annex under suggested tools and resources. Want to make sure I'm getting my head around the standard well since we are about to pursue AS9100 ourselves.

You missed 8.5.1.3 in AS9100D.

Note 2 shows that the activity for 8.5.1.3 can be referred to as First Article Inspection (FAI).

Back to the start of 8.5.1.3
"8.5.1.3 Production Process Verification

The organization shall implement production process verification activities to ensure the production process is able to produce product that meet requirements.

Note These activities can include risk assessments, capacity studies, capability studies, and control plans."

And here is the main part

"The organization shall use a representative sample from the first production run of a new part or assembly to verify that the production processes, production documentation, and tooling are able to products parts and assemblies that meet requirements. This activity shall be repeated when changes occur that invalidates the original results (e.g. engineering changes, production process changes, tooling changes)."

And here is the note again.

"Note This activity can be referred to as First Article inspection (FAI)."

Finally, don't forget the need for keeping records

"The organization shall retain documented information on the results of production process verification."

So the point is that you are obligated to do this on all products if you are AS9100D certified. This would be your minimum First Article requirements.

How to handle not doing it on non aerospace or defense parts is a separate discussion that I would be happy to post about if someone has interest.

AS9102 is a different standard. It deals with First Article Inspection exclusively and is much more detailed including the use of the forms it includes. You are not bound to AS9102 unless there is a customer requirement for AS9102.

As a practical matter, if there is a customer requirement for AS9102 make sure that you somehow allow for the added cost in your estimating.

I hope this clears things up. Additional comments are always welcome.
 

Eredhel

Quality Manager
It looks like I had it right in my head, "can" be doesn't mean "shall" be. AS9100 allows you to fulfill it in the context of your organization. So the original poster isn't required by AS9100 to pursue the AS9102 FAI requirements specifically as long as they fulfill the requirements in their own way, unless a customer or something else drives it?
 

Big Jim

Admin
It looks like I had it right in my head, "can" be doesn't mean "shall" be. AS9100 allows you to fulfill it in the context of your organization. So the original poster isn't required by AS9100 to pursue the AS9102 FAI requirements specifically as long as they fulfill the requirements in their own way, unless a customer or something else drives it?

You got it.
 
Top Bottom