AS9100D Requirements vis-a-vis Section 8.5.1.3

L

Legrand

So here's the story... I work as an engineer in a machine shop that makes components which are built into our company's assemblies (finished, shipped to customer products). Our company has been AS9100 certified for many years (at least a decade or two). Only a small portion of our customers require that we be AS9100 certified. During our last audit, there were several major and minor findings (across the company) leading to suspension of our certification. We busted our butts and addressed these issues and have since been re-certified.

In the process of re-evaluating our procedures and processes, we've found several questionable issues leading us to want to re-write some of the procedures. It's not my responsibility to champion this, but given what has happened during the last audit, I'm attempting to assure that we're not leaving gaping holes in the system.

Questions:

1.) When I read 8.5.1.3 it talks about using a representative item from a first production run to verify [everything] and that this has to be repeated when [something changes]. You also have to retain documentation regarding this. It says that this can be referred to as a FAIR.

I read this as requiring a FAIR for all of our component parts, as we're an "AS9100" company. The guy in charge is saying "no, only if the customer requires it (i.e. it's in a specific contract), do you need a fair". True or not?

2.) Do the components need a FAIR or just the final assembly that's shipped out?

3.) If no FAIR is required for the component parts, can our "quality system" in the machine shop be only a stamp/signature from the guy(s) that made the parts, verifying that the parts are good? That is to say, do we need to actually record numbers for dimensions, or can everything just be "pass/fail"?

Thanks for the input.
 

dsanabria

Quite Involved in Discussions
So here's the story... I work as an engineer in a machine shop that makes components which are built into our company's assemblies (finished, shipped to customer products). Our company has been AS9100 certified for many years (at least a decade or two). Only a small portion of our customers require that we be AS9100 certified. During our last audit, there were several major and minor findings (across the company) leading to suspension of our certification. We busted our butts and addressed these issues and have since been re-certified.

In the process of re-evaluating our procedures and processes, we've found several questionable issues leading us to want to re-write some of the procedures. It's not my responsibility to champion this, but given what has happened during the last audit, I'm attempting to assure that we're not leaving gaping holes in the system.

Questions:

1.) When I read 8.5.1.3 it talks about using a representative item from a first production run to verify [everything] and that this has to be repeated when [something changes]. You also have to retain documentation regarding this. It says that this can be referred to as a FAIR.

I read this as requiring a FAIR for all of our component parts, as we're an "AS9100" company. The guy in charge is saying "no, only if the customer requires it (i.e. it's in a specific contract), do you need a fair". True or not?

2.) Do the components need a FAIR or just the final assembly that's shipped out?

3.) If no FAIR is required for the component parts, can our "quality system" in the machine shop be only a stamp/signature from the guy(s) that made the parts, verifying that the parts are good? That is to say, do we need to actually record numbers for dimensions, or can everything just be "pass/fail"?

Thanks for the input.

This is the kind of discussion that you need to have with your customer during contract review.

Your customer will define if they require a FAIR.

For your internal process a FAI is advisable because you want to know if your process are effective.
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
This is what the standard says:

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


It is a "shall" not a "should" or "may" or a note that is not a requirement. Even if the customer does not require it, if you want to comply with AS9100D requirements you need to do it.

It says part or assembly.
 
L

Legrand

This is what the standard says:

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


It is a "shall" not a "should" or "may" or a note that is not a requirement. Even if the customer does not require it, if you want to comply with AS9100D requirements you need to do it.

It says part or assembly.

Right. So we HAVE to verify (I'm ok with that), but it says it CAN be referred to as a FAIR, so we don't have to do that (specifically fill out an AS9102 FAIR), all we have to do is document someone saying "yep, these parts are OK, I say so on this day and here's my signature saying that they're ok, this signature is saying that I measured them to the print". We don't need to record any specific measurements on paper, since we don't really have any KPC's on our prints to track.
 
Top Bottom