Heading dies as "tooling" and AS9100

[Lynnbg]

Backstory, I just got hired here about 4 months ago but have a long history of working in aerospace manufacturing facilities (purchasing).
OK, so we are a "heading" manufacturer of socket head screws etc... I have a few questions about the tooling and it's applicability to any AS or ISO requirements.

The Quality Dept. and most everyone else treats the dies, punches, and other tooling required to "head" fasteners as nothing important. Like other cutting tools we buy from MSC let's say.. (This tooling is creating the shape of the fasteners, how could it NOT be important?)

For each tool (die, punch, hammer, knock out pin), we create it's own drawing with revisions, etc.. and supply those to the vendor with each new PO.
The fact that we created a drawing with revisions, doesn't that mean we need to be inspecting every new lot or item to that drawing? Checking if it's got the RC required per that drawing? Was the correct material used as per the drawing? (Management thinking is "the suppliers know what we want, and we trust them to make as per the print so we don't need to check it..) OMG !!! Really??

These items do not get "inspected" by the Quality Dept. like the coil wire (raw material) does. They have the tool crib people just doing some simple caliper checks of dimensions when they come in from our suppliers. (Doesn't that mean they should be "trained" to do this task? Shouldn't it be in their job description?)

I've also seen some "rejections" to the suppliers for not meeting the dimensions on our print. (Why are we NCRing something that "isn't important" - When we do, aren't we now saying "it's important"?) I'm new to this company and it smells like a potential finding but I can't seem to get anyone to agree with me. What part of which standard proves my point? Or I am concerned about things I shouldn't be? Thank you for your input!

 

[outdoorsNW]

If I understand what you are saying right, the tooling is not checked as carefully as the raw materials.

Now, inspection is non value add work, so if you have good tooling suppliers but not so good raw material suppliers (maybe the only options are big companies that consider your company to be a small customer not worthy of special attention), then checking raw materials more may be justified. On the other hand, is the tooling likely to create more bad product than the raw materials? If yes, then the tooling probably needs to be checked more by people who are better trained.

A lot of this comes down to how common a quality problem of each is, and what the consequences are (cost, lost time, possible escapes, etc.). From your post, I don't see a clear answer.

Some more details would be helpful in understanding where the failures are, the consequences of the failures.

As to AS9100, can your company show the amount of inspection is related to the risk, frequency, and effects of a problem? If yes, you may be fine. But without more details I can't be sure.

 

[Lynnbg]

If I understand what you are saying right, the tooling is not checked as carefully as the raw materials.

Now, inspection is non value add work, so if you have good tooling suppliers but not so good raw material suppliers (maybe the only options are big companies that consider your company to be a small customer not worthy of special attention), then checking raw materials more may be justified. On the other hand, is the tooling likely to create more bad product than the raw materials? If yes, then the tooling probably needs to be checked more by people who are better trained.

A lot of this comes down to how common a quality problem of each is, and what the consequences are (cost, lost time, possible escapes, etc.). From your post, I don't see a clear answer.

Some more details would be helpful in understanding where the failures are, the consequences of the failures.

As to AS9100, can your company show the amount of inspection is related to the risk, frequency, and effects of a problem? If yes, you may be fine. But without more details I can't be sure.

To be honest, I have to say that from what I've seen, we have caught potential problems with the tooling and the wire BEFORE we started making fasteners. But I agree with "consequences".. if the forming dies are not made to the right dimensions, we wouldn't find out until after we've already started to run the wire through the heading machines. Lost time and raw material.

That being said, I suppose just because I think it's a potential for something to go bad, doesn't mean something will. Like I said, I've only been here a few months and this company has been around for 50 years. I'm sure if something bad was going to happen, it already would have and the powers that be, have already mitigated that risk. And if absolutely nothing has been done, then successful audits thus far should be my answer. Go find something else to do! Thanks for your reply,