Following AS9102 for FAI Requirements - Does EVERY Component Need Its Own FAI?



We started our in-depth review yesterday. Had a meeting for 1.74 hours and only made it through 5.6.11. We're just going through listing what we currently do and are also listing our interpretations of the AS9102 standard. We're then going to present these to our customers and see if they'll accept what we're currently doing as meeting the intent of the standard.

We have received another spec requirement from a French customer for EN9102. I haven't been able to find that on the internet but I'm assuming it's Europe's version of AS9102. Anyone know for sure? If so, are there any slight differences?


Re: Companies certified to AS9100

I haven't heard of any but haven't really looked either.


Apparently these people are certified to AS9100: 1999 (broken link removed)


There is a company in Dayton, Oh that has introduced a web-based FAI tool that helps develop the FAI package. The tool is being implemented by a couple of the OEMs to drive the marriage between design and quality. The system lets both dimensional and spec requirments to be consolidated using Intelligent document technology and then offers results reporting and auto evaluation of results for conformance.


What is the name of the company?

Did they develop this tool with the intention of marketing it or is it a home-grown component of their quality system?


Like the original poster, the company I work with produces top assemblies with sometimes hundreds of sub-components. While we do first articles on each stage, AS9102 requires that a top assembly first article incorporate the paperwork of each of them (i.e. must be attached, not simply available), and it must be on the AS9102 prescribed form.

We'll likely tell customers that attempt to invoke this to go pound sand, and that we'll provide an AS9102 FAI only to the top assembly drawing requirements (usually a customer SCD).

As a side note, AS9102 should recognize varying levels of scope for FAI. To fail to do so is to be naively unaware of the impact to thousands of companies. I really don't want to have to negotiate this point on each and every contract. What a PITA... :frust:


Has anyone prepared a separate price quote for the AS9102 FAI effort. When I give our Business Development people a quote they look stunned. Because of the traceability, vendor flowdown, and inspection requirements the effort is large. One of our customers worked their way through the effort with us. One problem was making sure of approved process vendors two levels down. I like the idea of asking for permission to do a top level FAI.


I’ve thought a bit more about this and have refined my position a bit:

1. Most customers order to their SCD, and that is the PN to which the requirement to perform an AS9102 FAI applies. In such circumstances our company position will be that we will perform the FAI to the SCD requirements, which will essentially be envelope dimensional verification, the results of the Qual test, plus the specific part’s ATP results. There will be a bit higher burden in this case, only because we’ll be required to include some additional information and put it all together on the AS9102 forms. This can be handled with appropriate training of the people we have perform the FAI.
2. In those cases where the customer is ordering our company's PN (the detailed design that has a hierarchy of parts) and imposes AS9102 then we’ll have to either negotiate to have this specific requirement removed, or comply with the burden of the multi-tiered FAI (down to the level of the raw material and processing certifications).

By the way, the companies I now see imposing this requirement includes Messier-Dowty, Hamilton Sundstrand, Rolls-Royce, and Boeing.



Others on the AS9102 listing

You can add Lockheed to the group of customers who want the AS9102.

We've tried the discussion about removing or changing the requirements:bonk: Goooood luck.

As a company we are close to :truce: which means 100% FAI on all detail drawings... just because you can make it once doesn't mean that your process is capable. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
Top Bottom