AS9102 Rev C - 4.6.-f.6. 2-year lapse

[TinGent]

Hi,

I am looking for advice about the 'golden' 2-year lapse FAIR rule under AS9102 Rev C.

Our supplier has sent parts that have not been sold to us for over 4 years according to our records, but upon my new Senior's request for a new FAIR, the supplier has showed that they have been continuously producing the parts since the initial compilation and acceptance of their Full FAIR years prior.

There is a current debate in house whether or not we require a new FAIR to cover recently supplied parts with a reasoning of just a lapse in sales of over 2 years or if the parts are still covered due to continuously produced parts at supplier (whether of not they were sold to us during the 4 year lapse) as the standard only describes "A lapse in production for two years for any characteristics that may be impacted. This lapse is from the completion of the last production operation to the actual restart of production.". Not specifically dependent on sales dates.

Could anyone help me settle this please?

 

[Bev D]

You have quoted it accurately. It is production time not when you bought the thing. But if you haven’t produced your thing that this thing goes into in the last two years your thing may require a FAIR…

 

[John Predmore]

Idle equipment can degrade over prolonged periods of time. I personally would be more forgiving knowing the equipment was in continual/regular use during the intervening time. However, the other risk to consider after years of extended hiatus is that process/equipment will inevitably change in subtle ways - wear is gradual, original machine components are replaced over time with replacement parts containing subtle differences, or come from a different manufacturer, even when the new manufacturer ships with the same part number. (Yesterday, I replaced a key fob. Even though I ordered the identical correct part number, the component parts in the new assembly were not interchangeable with original component parts!)

I always say First Article Inspection (FAI) is a risk-reduction activity. The safest course of action for the lowest risk is to insist on a fresh FAIR, at least a partial, to include all critical features and dimensions.

I guess the way to settle the debate is the customer is king, "the customer is always right", even when the customer appears unreasonable. If you as the customer feel guilty, you could perhaps negotiate to pay a small service charge for the extra time and paperwork. That compromise gives you the FAIR protection and reimburses the supplier for his added cost.

 

[Bev D]

Well there is no real substantive debate. The OPs question is clear and the requirement in this standard is clear. If there is a lull in PRODUCTION of two or more years a FAIR is required. There is no requirement for a FAIR if the part has not been purchased in over two years…if the OP or their purchasing organization thinks the supplier is lying about production or if they think a change Requiring a FAIR had occurred in the interim since their last purchase they can request a FAIR on the current part. Words matter and there is no ambiguity in this requirement.

 

[Big Jim]

The customer is always the customer even if he is wrong over a technicality. Keep the customer happy, and provide a fresh first article inspection report. Debate as to if he should pay for it after? Maybe or maybe not.

 

[Bev D]

The customer is always the customer even if he is wrong over a technicality. Keep the customer happy, and provide a fresh first article inspection report. Debate as to if he should pay for it after? Maybe or maybe not.

I agree that the Customer’s requirements are to be followed If they are more stringent than the standard and you should be allowed to charge for any requirement that was not included in the contract. (Of course if the Customer is asking for something silly like a FAIR simply because it has been two+ years since purchase of a supplied part that has been continuously produced I would strenuously question the Customers requirement as there is no physical or logical reason for a FAIR)
HOWEVER, the OP says this is an internal debate and has not mentioned that their Customer is requesting this either directly or implicitly thru some contract. It would be helpful if the OP could clarify their situation.

 

[Big Jim]

I agree that the Customer’s requirements are to be followed If they are more stringent than the standard and you should be allowed to charge for any requirement that was not included in the contract. (Of course if the Customer is asking for something silly like a FAIR simply because it has been two+ years since purchase of a supplied part that has been continuously produced I would strenuously question the Customers requirement as there is no physical or logical reason for a FAIR)
HOWEVER, the OP says this is an internal debate and has not mentioned that their Customer is requesting this either directly or implicitly thru some contract. It would be helpful if the OP could clarify their situation.

Not paying attention to silly things can lose contracts. It is such a simple thing so just do it and move on.

 

[Bev D]

And if this isn’t a customer request? What if the Customer simply references the standard? The standard clearly calls out PRODUCTION not purchasing or sales…the OP only indicated this as an INTERNAL debate…oh well

 

[Big Jim]

And if this isn’t a customer request? What if the Customer simply references the standard? The standard clearly calls out PRODUCTION not purchasing or sales…the OP only indicated this as an INTERNAL debate…oh well

I caught all that. From a "what if" exercise or an actual customer request, I would advise the same as I did above.

 

[TinGent]

Hi All,

Thank for the great responses, to clarify the internal debate is due to 'the longest most experienced' member of our internal FAIR team has been requesting and expecting our suppliers to compile and send us a new FAIR (typically a Delta) for the sole reason of a two year plus gap in supplier selling us the parts even if the supplier has proven continuous production since the initial FAIR since beginning of production their end.

I did not believe that we should be requesting a new supplier FAIR purely on a sales basis when no time lapse in production has occurred.