FAI (First Article Inspection) and Key Characteristics Requirements - AS9100

[Sohail]

Following scenario developed during audit of AS 9100 Rev B

1. Auditor Comments :

Key characteristics are not identified in the system.

Auditee Answer :

Customer has not identified any KC requirement in the criteria provided by them. All drawings contain general tolerances and no critical dimensions are there. Main adjustments of the product are made outside the organization as on many products we only do rough machining.

Solution :

1. Major NC, 2. Minor NC 3. Observation 4. Nothing 5. Needs more info.


2. Auditor Comments :

First article inspection is not done in the assembly section.
First article inspection is done on the product and not on the machine which makes the product as required by the standard.

Auditee Answer :

We do not do the final inspection. It is outsourced to other organization. We have done FAI on machine by producing a product on it and inspecting the product in order to verify the working of the machine.

Solution :

1. Major NC, 2. Minor NC 3. Observation 4. Nothing 5. Needs more info.

3. Auditor Comments :

Welding process is not declared as special process and its controls are not identified. Di penitrant tests only identifies the external cracks. Internal cracks goes un reported.

Auditee Comments :

We do DP test on 100 percent welded parts. Customer is happy and so are we. No problems. Why to implement special process clause then?

Solution :

1. Major NC, 2. Minor NC 3. Observation 4. Nothing 5. Needs more info.

 

[Stijloor]

Following scenario developed during audit of AS 9100 Rev B

1. Auditor Comments :

Key characteristics are not identified in the system.

Auditee Answer :

Customer has not identified any KC requirement in the criteria provided by them. All drawings contain general tolerances and no critical dimensions are there. Main adjustments of the product are made outside the organization as on many products we only do rough machining.

Solution :

1. Major NC, 2. Minor NC 3. Observation 4. Nothing 5. Needs more info.


2. Auditor Comments :

First article inspection is not done in the assembly section.
First article inspection is done on the product and not on the machine which makes the product as required by the standard.

Auditee Answer :

We do not do the final inspection. It is outsourced to other organization. We have done FAI on machine by producing a product on it and inspecting the product in order to verify the working of the machine.

Solution :

1. Major NC, 2. Minor NC 3. Observation 4. Nothing 5. Needs more info.

3. Auditor Comments :

Welding process is not declared as special process and its controls are not identified. Di penitrant tests only identifies the external cracks. Internal cracks goes un reported.

Auditee Comments :

We do DP test on 100 percent welded parts. Customer is happy and so are we. No problems. Why to implement special process clause then?

Solution :

1. Major NC, 2. Minor NC 3. Observation 4. Nothing 5. Needs more info.

Comments?

Stijloor.

 

[Big Jim]

Following scenario developed during audit of AS 9100 Rev B

1. Auditor Comments :

Key characteristics are not identified in the system.

Auditee Answer :

Customer has not identified any KC requirement in the criteria provided by them. All drawings contain general tolerances and no critical dimensions are there. Main adjustments of the product are made outside the organization as on many products we only do rough machining.

Solution :

1. Major NC, 2. Minor NC 3. Observation 4. Nothing 5. Needs more info.


2. Auditor Comments :

First article inspection is not done in the assembly section.
First article inspection is done on the product and not on the machine which makes the product as required by the standard.

Auditee Answer :

We do not do the final inspection. It is outsourced to other organization. We have done FAI on machine by producing a product on it and inspecting the product in order to verify the working of the machine.

Solution :

1. Major NC, 2. Minor NC 3. Observation 4. Nothing 5. Needs more info.

3. Auditor Comments :

Welding process is not declared as special process and its controls are not identified. Di penitrant tests only identifies the external cracks. Internal cracks goes un reported.

Auditee Comments :

We do DP test on 100 percent welded parts. Customer is happy and so are we. No problems. Why to implement special process clause then?

Solution :

1. Major NC, 2. Minor NC 3. Observation 4. Nothing 5. Needs more info.

Item 1 -- It is my understanding that if the customer does not identify key characteristics that you are not required to do so. I invite others to comment. As a practical matter, it would be unwise to ignore any obvious ones though.

Item 2 -- I'm not sure I understand your scenario. First article is done on the part, and one of the purposes for performing first article can be to validate the production equipment and processes. If you are inspecting to confirm the equipment is performing properly, you might be doing most of the first article inspection already. Why are you farming it out?

Item 3 -- What needs to be done to validate welding is one of those "it depends" situations. You really cannot tell the quality of a weld from nondestructive testing only. To be really sure of the quality of a weld, usually some sort of destructive testing validation is needed. More information is needed. Has the customer specified the dye penetrate method in their documentation? Having a welder certified is one method (a common one), and certifying the welder usually includes destructive testing of samples of his welding.

I invite additional comments on any of this.

 

[Sohail]

1 )The customer may not know what are the critical parameters that should be controlled during the product realziation process in order to get the conforming product, especially an aerospace product with zero risk of error, i.e. plane parts. So organization working in AS env. must identify and control those critical parameters. (Shouldnt be?)

2) You understood my point well. But FAI on equipment may be the responsibility of the equipment manufacturer because it is his product. The point is, does one time FAI on equipment by producing and inspecting any prototype, absolve the organzation to do FAI on any other newly designed product produced by the same equipment?, since the equipement has already passed the FAI?

3) The customer hasnt identified any test for inspection of the weld. There are no other inspections/tests to check the weld, just the DP test and this is the addtional task which the org does when the customer doesnt require it. In this case shouldnt the welding process be declared as special process, atleast?

 

[Big Jim]

1 )The customer may not know what are the critical parameters that should be controlled during the product realziation process in order to get the conforming product, especially an aerospace product with zero risk of error, i.e. plane parts. So organization working in AS env. must identify and control those critical parameters. (Shouldnt be?)

2) You understood my point well. But FAI on equipment may be the responsibility of the equipment manufacturer because it is his product. The point is, does one time FAI on equipment by producing and inspecting any prototype, absolve the organzation to do FAI on any other newly designed product produced by the same equipment?, since the equipement has already passed the FAI?

3) The customer hasnt identified any test for inspection of the weld. There are no other inspections/tests to check the weld, just the DP test and this is the addtional task which the org does when the customer doesnt require it. In this case shouldnt the welding process be declared as special process, atleast?

1. As I said before, it is my understanding that if the customer has not identified key characteristics, you do not need to. I invite others to comment.

2. FAI on equipment? Absolved from FAI on future product made with that equipment? I think you are confused.

"8.2.4.2 First Article Inspection: The organization's system shall provide a process for the inspection, verification, and documentation of a representative item from the first production run of a new part, or following any subsequent changes that invalidates the previous first article inspection result."

I don't see anything there about FAI on equipment there.

The standard is clear. You perform FAI on an item from the first production run. That would be on a part, not the equipment. It is the part that passed the FAI, not the equipment.

You may be trying to apply 7.5.1.3, but I don't think you are applying it properly.

"7.5.1.3 Control of Production Equipment, Tools and Numerical Control (NC) Machine Programs: Production equipment, tools and programs shall be validated prior to use and maintained and inspected periodically according to documented procedures. Validation prior to production use shall include verification of the first article produced to the design data/specification."

I don't see where the equipment manufacturer has FAI responsibility. It is the organization that is required to verify the first article produced with the equipment, not the equipment manufacturer.

3. Welding is almost always a "special process". Nondestructive tests by themselves do not usually provide adequate validation of the quality of the weld. It would be easy for me to provide a weld sample that would pass NDT but still not have proper penetration. NDT along with samples that were destructively tested probably would.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

1. As I said before, it is my understanding that if the customer has not identified key characteristics, you do not need to. I invite others to comment.

Key characteristics (see definition) and critical items (AS9100C 3.3) might be identified by the suppliers themselves, specially as it relates to manufacturability and producibility issues, in terms of variation reduction. For example, a supplier might be aware that only one of their grinding machines is capable of consistently delivering a very tight tolerance. So, as part of the process control for that grinding step, the router could state that specific machine to be used for grinding that dimension. The customer might not be aware of that issue, but the supplier is.

 

[Sohail]

1.

"I don't see anything there about FAI on equipment there.

The standard is clear. You perform FAI on an item from the first production run. That would be on a part, not the equipment. It is the part that passed the FAI, not the equipment."

1) Sydney, that's what I want to say. If the customer isn't aware of the KC in the product R process and the organization does, so organization must identify them.

2) BJ, No I am not confused. Thats exactly what I need to hear and that's the point I need to defend. If you go to my first or second posting, I have the same opinion.

3) Agreed with BJ.

 

[Blue Screw]

Chalk this entire question up to Junk in, Junk out
It seems that the outputs are the result of your inputs.

You will always have characteristics, even on the simplest product.
report on all of them within the FAI.
The machine does not verify the product, ever. - The FAI proves the capability of the machine to make a conforming product. This will verify the NC programming.

The last part deals with the inspection. What does the print say? does it require further inspection other than penetrant?
If so, then the finding is correct. If there is no requirement on the drawing or specification, sow etc, then you are clear. You have done what is asked of you and proved it. no finding.