AS9102 Form 2; Section 5

[Quality_Goblin]

Hi All,

I have a question regarding Form 2; Section 5 - Material or Process Name.

When inputting the data, are we to put in all material POs, processes, etc. that are used for the whole production run or just for that FAI part? We've been running into this query at my company and I can't seem to find a clear answer.

For example: On a job we used two purchase orders for raw material. The FAI part was made with PO# 12345, but the second half of production was made with PO# 12346. Do we include both POs? Or do we only include materials and processes where the FAI part was produced?

 

[John Predmore]

By tradition, the First Article Inspection (FAI) is for a single piece from the start of the run, representative of what your finalized production process is.

According to the rules, you use the PO for the material used in the production of the first article piece. AS9100 requires that your company have material identification and traceability throughout your process, wherever feasible and where it potentially matters to quality. Sometimes, with raw material like plastic pellets in injection molding, one batch is mixed with the previous batch, and it is impossible to tell where one batch ends and the next batch begins. If the material bought on 12345 and 12346 are literally identical, then I suppose it doesn't matter. If there ever is a serious problem, you better have records to trace and isolate the source of the problem, or else your company will be on the hook to contain and rework/replace a huge combined inventory of potentially affected product.

 

[Quality_Goblin]

By tradition, the First Article Inspection (FAI) is for a single piece from the start of the run, representative of what your finalized production process is.

According to the rules, you use the PO for the material used in the production of the first article piece. AS9100 requires that your company have material identification and traceability throughout your process, wherever feasible and where it potentially matters to quality. Sometimes, with raw material like plastic pellets in injection molding, one batch is mixed with the previous batch, and it is impossible to tell where one batch ends and the next batch begins. If the material bought on 12345 and 12346 are literally identical, then I suppose it doesn't matter. If there ever is a serious problem, you better have records to trace and isolate the source of the problem, or else your company will be on the hook to contain and rework/replace a huge combined inventory of potentially affected product.

Yes, that makes sense. I knew that the FAIR was to record all info for the first piece. We noticed recently that some of the QC inspectors were not recording any special processes, so perhaps it was our company's decision to start including ALL material and ALL special process POs on the FAIR for traceability. However, when we ship the parts to the customers, we include the material and special process certs for as well to show full traceability, so I don't think we need to have them listed on the FAIR as well?

 

[John Predmore]

The FAI is intended to be very thorough, so you demonstrate you have the ability to trace every little bit, which is likely beyond what you do for routine customers orders. The tradeoff is, you only have to do the thorough report once (until something changes, and then you can do a partial report).

 

[Quality_Goblin]

The FAI is intended to be very thorough, so you demonstrate you have the ability to trace every little bit, which is likely beyond what you do for routine customers orders. The tradeoff is, you only have to do the thorough report once (until something changes, and then you can do a partial report).

So you're saying that we should include ALL materials and processes from the whole production run and not just for what part of production included the FAI piece?

 

[Michael_M]

So you're saying that we should include ALL materials and processes from the whole production run and not just for what part of production included the FAI piece?

John is correct in the AS9102 FAIR is only for the first part. What I believe John was saying is AFTER the FAIR is complete, you need to be able to track and/or trace everything that made the parts from that point on within your system but NOT on the FAIR. For example, you produce your FAIR off the first batch made of 100 parts. You then produce another 100 parts. You will not need a FAIR (unless something requires it), but within your system, you will need to be able to track everything done to the 2nd batch of 100 parts including material and outside processing.

I don't remember the specifics, but you only need to do a second FAIR when you have not produced the parts in 2 or more years, when there is a process change, when the customer requests it. There are other reasons but I forget the specifics.

 

[John Predmore]

when we ship the parts to the customers, we include the material and special process certs for as well to show full traceability

you demonstrate you have the ability to trace every little bit

What I meant by "every little bit" was an FAI is more thorough than what you described as full traceability, where you report certs to your customers. The FAI traces process and inspection records of every component, every production step of that one article, which goes beyond raw-material/special-process certs. The good news is, that extended effort is only done once, for one piece.

 

[nickwarren]

If the 2nd batch is not _identical_, would that constitute a process change and require a few FAIR? Otherwise, would that 2nd batch information be captured in a PPAP?

 

[John Predmore]

The AS9102 standard outlines a few circumstances which trigger a redo on the FAI, and your customer's supplier quality policy may add their own language on requirements and expectations. Other than these black & white instructions, there is plenty of interpretation and judgement needed to decide how different is "not_identical" for the purpose of an FAI redo. I notice the new release of AS9102 more formally calls for a multi-disciplinary team making FAI decisions. IMO the review whether an FAI redo is warranted should be incorporated as a routine decision step in your engineering change control procedure.

I consider FAI to be a risk reduction activity for the manufacturer as well as the customer, and is similar to PPAP activity in intent. FAI Inspection of a single piece, while not statistically significant, is likely more expedient than PPAP to uncover a gotcha. It is cheap insurance against many forms of insidious human error. It is also true that your internal quality department or engineering team can decide to complete an FAI redo even when it is not mandated to be submitted to the external customer. Mark Twain famously wrote, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that ain't so".