Dimensional Results Vs First Article Inspection Report (FAIR) within PPAP

[Gambit 12]

Hello All,
I come from a medical device background from a contract manufacturer. In regards to PPAP, In the past, I have always used a FAIR for PPAP submissions. In my new role (supplier quality engineer), I am working to set up my company's standards in regard to the PPAP requirements.
I got into a discussion with another SQE regarding their current "dimensional Results" element. Comparing the requirements, they are essentially the same element type.

Are there any pros/cons to using one vs the other?

 

[Golfman25]

Are you doing an Automotive PPAP? If so, a lot of companies like the automotive forms laid out in the AIAG books. If not, you can probably stick with what works best for you.

 

[Gambit 12]

We are not Automotive. Technically, we are HVAC, but we have adopted a lot of the automotive requirements. Then again, in my medical device background, we referenced AIAG for some of our element details.

When I compare a dimensional results form, there is lacking information compared to a typical FAIR form I have used in the past. The dimensional result element does not include material/performance test results. I also do not see a requirement regarding the samples needing to be from a production run.

 

[Golfman25]

We are not Automotive. Technically, we are HVAC, but we have adopted a lot of the automotive requirements. Then again, in my medical device background, we referenced AIAG for some of our element details.

When I compare a dimensional results form, there is lacking information compared to a typical FAIR form I have used in the past. The dimensional result element does not include material/performance test results. I also do not see a requirement regarding the samples needing to be from a production run.

It's all in the AIAG books. I am fairly certain the samples have to be from a significant run, i.e.; 300+ pcs. Material is a different form all together.

There is no world where I would "adopt" the automotive requirements for anything other than automotive. There are much easier and better ways of doing things. I would be flexible and pick what works best for your organization.

 

[Miner]

We are not Automotive. Technically, we are HVAC, but we have adopted a lot of the automotive requirements. Then again, in my medical device background, we referenced AIAG for some of our element details.

When I compare a dimensional results form, there is lacking information compared to a typical FAIR form I have used in the past. The dimensional result element does not include material/performance test results. I also do not see a requirement regarding the samples needing to be from a production run.

Automotive has separate forms for dimensional, material, performance and appearance.

 

[Gambit 12]

Automotive has separate forms for dimensional, material, performance and appearance.

But shouldn't they all be linked to the parts?
In a FAIR, there is a set of parts that need to be inspected to the design records. Those same parts need to be linked to the material certs and any additional testing that gives evidence back to the design record.
In a dimensional results element, it is more focused on the dimensional results.
I guess in my mind, there can be a gap in the dimensional results element. I could be overthinking this, I suppose.

 

[Miner]

My automotive experience is dated (pre-IATF), but during the QS-9000 and TS16949 days, we did not have to link the performance or material certs to the parts used for the dimensional checks. In most cases, they were destructive tests and just had to be from saleable product.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Welcome to The Cove!

The First Article Inspection is expected to confirm that the parts (sample size determined by the customer) conform to the requirements specified for that part. For us, that may also include an image of the label because we have had trouble with them, and attributes as called out by drawings and other specs. Different customers may have different expectations, so the best thing is to discuss with your customer SQE. My people have a form we give out for the FAI, but suppliers are free to use their own format so long as it captures everything. So do open up discussions with your customer contacts. It could save you time and hassle from redoing forms later.

 

[Johnnymo62]

There are usually 18 sections to an automotive PPAP with dimensional only being one of them.