Eloy Gomez

Inactive Registered Visitor
#1
[FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]7.4.3 Where the organization utilizes test reports to verify purchased product, the data in those reports shall be acceptable per applicable specifications. The organization shall periodically validate test reports for raw material.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]We are a small organization - what would be the best way to meet the highlighted red requirement where we need to validate test reports?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Define periodically? Once a year, every 2 years? How often?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Which materials or all materials = steel, aluminum, honeycomb core, prepreg, adhesives? [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]We want to start meeting this requirement but we are not sure where to start and it needs to be cost effective and value added, can some of you who work in the aerospace industry tell me what is your organization practicing to meet this requirement? Thanks in advance.[/FONT]
 

BadgerMan

Forum Moderator
Moderator
#2
I believe that requirement has been removed from Rev C of the standard. However, I agree that it might still be a good thing to do depending on your business. We do it quarterly and we include all materials in our sampling.
 

Joy

Quite Involved in Discussions
#3
Go for Rev.C and you can avoid this requirement (apparently).If you consider that following this would be good for your organisation,you can still continue to meet this requirement.

First, identify those material which can directly affect product quality.Next,you identify those materials which cannot be identified internally for product deficieny or you depend only on supplier given COC.Consider these materials for validation of test certificates.

About how to determine frequency-consider the amount of risk associated with product failure and consequence.Also you can consider if the materil is supplied directly by manufacturer,market reputation of supplier,reputation of test lab issued the certificate etc.As the standard is generic there is no specific requiremet and there may be situations where this validation is done for each lot and there may be cases where it is done annually.
Also discuss with your customer and you may get exemption for some.
 

DannyK

Quite Involved in Discussions
#4
Even though this requirement is excluded from AS9100 Rev. C, it does not mean that you can exclude this requirement if it is a customer contractual requirement.
 

Big Jim

Quite Involved in Discussions
#5
Also you cannot avoid this requirement as long as you are registered to AS9100B. Since you can't get registered to AS9100C yet (but getting closer), you're stuck for the time being.

You get to determine the frequency as long as it is effective. If you use very much such material, the frequency would tend to be higher than if you don't use much of them. Any of the materials you listed appear to be appropriate. You can randomly select material for validation, or use some judgment and select what you may consider to be more critical materials.

For a small company, what I often see is either once or twice a year.
 
C

Citizen Kane

Guest
#6
You should define a list with the materials and how critical are they. Also, I suggest to do this for all of them, but differentiated based on critical/less critical or often/not often used. And, by this, you could have the critical ones quarterly, and the rest twice a year. Of course, by sampling, but in special cases, for short periods, could be installed 100% check.
 
R

Ramansrin

Guest
#7
This is a very good requirement and you can draw a work instruction defining the criteria for the revalidation, like if u purchse a raw material only once in a year and if it is critical, you would validate every time and for a regular purchase if it comes from a branded manufacturere you would revalidate once in 2 years etc
 

Joy

Quite Involved in Discussions
#8
I have some funny doubt about the intention of this requirement.Is this requirement is to ensure that only conforming product is used as raw material?If it was so, then the requirement should read "The organization shall validate test reports for raw material" but it adds "periodically".So,the intention may be to implement some amount of control over purchase process and supplier.So the supplier would know that there is a possibility of verification of material:caution:.
 
C

Citizen Kane

Guest
#9
True, the supplier should be informed durring the purchase process. But yet, as a supplier your target is to deliver 100% good, no ? So, as a principle, the supplier should assure the 100% and not only hope for it (true, fails happens, nothing's perfect). So, my first assumption as a production is that I receive OK parts, not NOK. And I do a sampling check or 100% for short periods on major/frecquent fails - and this is done by our Supplier Quality Check Dept.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Super Moderator
#10
I have some funny doubt about the intention of this requirement.Is this requirement is to ensure that only conforming product is used as raw material?If it was so, then the requirement should read "The organization shall validate test reports for raw material" but it adds "periodically".So,the intention may be to implement some amount of control over purchase process and supplier.So the supplier would know that there is a possibility of verification of material:caution:.
Aerospace product integrity requires strict conformity to specifications. Many aero-structural components are subject to huge levels of mechanical stress. It is absolutely critical that parts are made with the proper alloys and grades. Unethical suppliers have falsified material certs (check this example) in order to pass parts made with a lesser material and pocket the delta profit. They put lives at risk, along the way. The AS requirement, which is being deleted in Rev. C, makes perfect sense from a risk management perspective, especially when the globalization of the aero supply chain means that cheaper suppliers will come from countries with a history of organizations shipping tainted drugs, pet food, toxic construction material, shoddy products etc.

The deletion of this requirement in AS9100C shows (to me at least) that the IAQG AS9100 rewrite team is not too keen on risk management themselves.
It should be noted that, as mentioned several times already, many OEMs have a similar contractual requirement for this periodic and independent validation of the veracity of CoC's. So, aero suppliers must make sure such contractual clause does not apply to them, before stopping these checks altogether.
 
Last edited:
Top