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

R

Ray411

As9102

The R CR and O were used to define whether an auditor when reviewing an FAI report would expect to see entries in these blocks. It is not intended to define customer requirements. The requirement is to perform an FAI at every level of manufacturing so that every component characteristic is verified.
Now please keep in mind that if you have a customer who is not requiring FAIs to be performed to AS9102 then you can read it anyway you wouild like. We attempted to write the standard as clear as possible but when you are writing an international standard that can be very difficult.
Please do a search on AS9102 Rev A and you will see I was on the revision committee.
Ray Winkowski

QUOTE=Hal]The new AS9102A does not appear to specifically require a full Top Down First Article. Page 7, section 5.5 gives a definition of the requirements for the Forms. R is mandatory, CR Conditionally Required; when applicable ie. Customer requirement, and O optional. Therefore if the customer does not require a top down or the manufacturer does not want a full FAI then it is not required. Does anyone want to either comment or have a different Official interpretation?[/QUOTE]
 
A

assuranceman

Ray, thank you. You have prevented customer problems. The good thing about this site is being able to clear up questions such as this. However, unfortunately, I am not the only one that misunderstood the AS9102A Standard. A major first tier aerospace supplier has as part of its requirements indicated which of the CR's on the forms they require to be entered. This should probably be clarified in an official interpretation and later in the next revision.
 
L

LukeT

????

Hello all!!

New to this forum but trying to make heads or tails of the requirements of AS9102 and the soon to come AS9103 that we are going to be going to. My understanding is that AS9102 is supposed to be a standard for those that are going for compliance. We have an issue that a customer of ours that has two modalities and the two sides can not agree on which standard to use and they are still imposing there own seperate guidelines. From my understanding as long as the customer has not established FAI requirements it is a guideline and if they are requiring AS9102 compliance then it becomes the standard.

Correct me if I am wrong but if they come out and say we are going to AS9102 for FAI's, then there is a set standard that they will follow? The whole idea was to get the Aerospace industry standardized. They will not be able to impose their own requirements. If this is the case I wish that they would just say to go to that full time. With about 50-60 ECO's a month it is very difficult to keep track of all the changes that are going on.

Sorry this was so long but I got questions and I am the only one in my company that is working full time on this project and there is not a lot of support.
 
Q

qss-th

The contractual requirement cannot be gotten around but typically FAI requirements are flowed down to the actual manufacturer and need not be redone by the Company assembling these parts to produce an assembly. They would be responsible for assembling the FAI package including all of the lower level FAIR's and those pertaining to any parts the assembler produced, any lower level sub-asemblies and the top level assembly itself. Standard parts (off the shelf items) do not require FAI as they are typically qualified products.

Tom
 
L

LukeT

More FAI questions

According to the AS9102A document for the Form 1 completion under line item 15 there is a requirement for "detail or next level sub-assembly part number to be included in the assembly". We currently received a rejection for not having this filled out. This question is in reference to the fact that we do not build assemblies that have lower level subs, so do we have to fill out this section? How is everyone else treating this? Our customer is trying to change the rules of the specification in mid stream, and say that section is referring to the PCB and any custom parts used on the board. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks :frust:
 
G

gburns

Any detail parts or components required by the top assembly are to be included (with the exception of industry-standard item, such as NAS, MS, and similarly controlled items). So, if your top assembly incorporates a custom potentiometer, or LED display, or some other component, that would need to be listed, as would the PCB itself.
 
L

LukeT

Ok then, I have yet another question. How long is the supplier supposed to wait for the customer to return pass information for the FAI submitted? Are we supposed to continue to ship with all of the changes and three FAI's submitted without any acceptance from the customer? I don't think that is the right way to go, but the standard does not address this. Has anyone else ran into this?
 

Cari Spears

Super Moderator
Leader
Super Moderator
LukeT said:
Ok then, I have yet another question. How long is the supplier supposed to wait for the customer to return pass information for the FAI submitted? Are we supposed to continue to ship with all of the changes and three FAI's submitted without any acceptance from the customer? I don't think that is the right way to go, but the standard does not address this. Has anyone else ran into this?

Our customers requiring FAI, in general, do not want us to ship until we rec'v approval. However, we have been given instructions to ship on one occasion. Their incoming inspection process is time consuming so they asked us to ship with a notation on the Certificate of Conformance that serial #XX through XX are pending FAI approval. So the parts were already ready to assemble on their end as soon as FAI was approved.

That was a special circumstance. I'd ask your customer.
 
G

gburns

My experience where I work is that very few customers require pre-approval of FAIs prior to shipment. I agree that when they do it usually turns out to be very inconvenient.
 
L

LukeT

The problem that we are running into is that the customer lets us ship the FAI in a seperate package, then ship the rest of production seperately. Now, if the FAI fails for some reason the entire stock of production will fail and give us a PPM hit. So instead of getting dinged for just the FAI we now are dinged for that plus the production boards. I can't get management to see this issue and no one ever wants to push back on the customer.

The other issue that I have, among others, is that I have been told that when our customer gathers their teams together from four different modalities then they are going to tell us how they want it done. I can't get our management team to be proactive and assemble our own team for AS9102 implementation. So we sit here and wait for the customer to beat the heck out of us and interpret the standard as they see fit then pass it to us. This is highly frustrating. Currently it is just myself that is managing the AS9102 project, well it is myself and the quality manager but his plate is way to full to consider any help on this. It all rolls down hill right.
 
Top Bottom