AS9102 FAIR - Customer Drawing Revision Change

[TRBOKEV]

Greetings to everyone, this is my first post on this forum.

I was wondering if I could get a little input into an issue that has come up in regards to my first article system. I work in the fastener industry and we have a large amount of first articles on file. (Well over 2000 and climbing every day).
I have read that most companies create new first articles if a new revision to the customer drawing is released. My problem or issue with this is that there may be a revision change of the customers drawing and a large portion of the time it will be a non-technical change. An example would be that they change the format only of the page, or they may add another approved vendor to the page etc..
Would something like this require that I perform all new first articles? Could I simply make a new page 1, use the old page two and three and include the new print with bubbles as objective evidence of conformity?
Thanks in advance for your help and feedback.

 

[Big Jim]

If you are dealing with the first article requirements for AS9100C, the pertinent portion of the standard is the second half of element 7.5.1.1:

"This process shall be repeated when changes occur that invalidate the original results (e.g., engineering changes, manufacturing process changes, tooling changes)."

Pay particular attention to ". . . that invalidates the original results . . . ". If it doesn't invalidate the original results, you need do nothing.

If you are dealing with AS9102, that wording is more extensive. Be aware that AS9100C does not require that you adhere to AS9102. Your customer may though.

The pertinent portion here is AS9102 element 5.3:

"5.3 Partial or re-accomplishment of First Article Inspection

The FIA requirements may be satisfied by a partial FIA that addresses differences between the current configuration and the prior approved configurations. When a partial FIA is performed, the Organization shall complete only the affected fields in the FAI forms. FAI requirements may also be satisfied by previously performed FAI performed on identical characteristics of similar parts produced by identical means. When FAI requirements (partial or complete) are satisfied in this manner, identify the approved configuration in the index of part numbers on Form 1".

5.3 continues with the five instances that trigger a new or partial FIA and I'll leave that for you to look up.

I think you may be trying to do too much.

 

[andygr]

In those cases where there is no change to variable data or actual design data on what you are producing then you do not need to redo the complete FAI you do need to show evidence of proper review of the changes.
Your example of adding an alternate source is a good example. If you do not use the new additional source what has changed to your FAI from the prior revision? You only need to show that you have reviewed the change and add a note that there was no change to FAI data from prior revision. This would apply to format changes also.
This would be a partial FAI and you would add a note covering the review in block 14 or say see attached summary of review.
Now if the source has changed and the original source was deleted then you would need to create a new form 2.
More paper does not make the FAI better for these type of changes and IMO is mainly done for those who value format over function.

 

[TRBOKEV]

Thanks for the replys...

Yes we are a ISO9001 and AS9100 Revision C compliant and registered company. We are required by many of our primes to do FAIR's in accordance with AS9102, hold on file and if requested by the PO, supply a copy with certifications upon shipment.

The source addition that I referenced as an example would be approved suppliers besides ourselves that the parts can be purchased from, not material vendor sources etc. Some customers like Boeing have this information on the actual part drawings. Nothing changes on our FAIR's with this type of drawing revision change.. That is why I figured all we would need to do is update the revision level on page 1 and add the new copy of the part drawing with bubbles.

We get revision changes like this all the time and it's rather frustrating. I just had another drawing change for Airbus where they changed the drawing ownership (name on top of print) from Aerospatile to EADS, and converted the drawing to the current EADS format. There was absolutely no technical changes made to the drawing, just a changing of the "ownership" of the drawing.