I am looking for some ideas on how other people handle similar problems.
We are a contract electronics manufacturer. We have one customer with a paint spec applicable to the finished product’s exterior case as well as surfaces visible to the aircraft manufacturer but not seen when our case is installed on the aircraft. While the paint spec has some subjectivity, overall the spec is useful for determining the type and size of acceptable small paint defects. The paint is white.
There are several problems with the spec. We are working with the customer to improve the wording and pictures, but I feel I need a better understanding of how others handle similar issues.
The spec calls for viewing the case for 1-3 seconds per face, depending on the size, at a 90 degree angle. I saw a similar time limit in the only other similar paint spec we have (for a different customer). However, the case is over half curved surfaces (some are gentle and others are tight radius) so you either rotate the part or you are not viewing the part from 90 degrees. But if you rotate the part, then other surfaces are easily visible at an angle other than 90.
Our supplier (chosen by the customer) believes we are inspecting the parts too closely. However, if we do not, we risk customer returns. The end result is a user of the spec can follow the instructions, but miss problems because the light angle was slightly different in the 85-95 degree range, or the allowed time was too short. We have returns where I suspect one or both occurred.
A defect is a defect in my book. If the defect type and size exceeds the allowed rules, it is a defect even if we looked at the part for longer than intended or at a somewhat different angle.
Do others on Elsmar agree a defect that exceeds the allowed size for the type is still a defect even if you look for more time or see the defect at an angle a bit off of 90 degrees in order to allow for curved surfaces and the customer not being at a perfect 90 degrees?
The time limit seems to set the both us and our supplier up for failure because it limits the amount of inspection. If the customer has the light at even a slightly different angle, they may quickly see paint defects they we would miss if the light is at a different angle.
Because this is an airplane part, changing suppliers would be difficult and expensive.
My spec improvement thoughts are to relax or eliminate the time limit and refine how 90 degrees is defined for the curved surfaces. How to refine the 90 degree rule, I am unsure.
What thoughts do others have?
We are a contract electronics manufacturer. We have one customer with a paint spec applicable to the finished product’s exterior case as well as surfaces visible to the aircraft manufacturer but not seen when our case is installed on the aircraft. While the paint spec has some subjectivity, overall the spec is useful for determining the type and size of acceptable small paint defects. The paint is white.
There are several problems with the spec. We are working with the customer to improve the wording and pictures, but I feel I need a better understanding of how others handle similar issues.
The spec calls for viewing the case for 1-3 seconds per face, depending on the size, at a 90 degree angle. I saw a similar time limit in the only other similar paint spec we have (for a different customer). However, the case is over half curved surfaces (some are gentle and others are tight radius) so you either rotate the part or you are not viewing the part from 90 degrees. But if you rotate the part, then other surfaces are easily visible at an angle other than 90.
Our supplier (chosen by the customer) believes we are inspecting the parts too closely. However, if we do not, we risk customer returns. The end result is a user of the spec can follow the instructions, but miss problems because the light angle was slightly different in the 85-95 degree range, or the allowed time was too short. We have returns where I suspect one or both occurred.
A defect is a defect in my book. If the defect type and size exceeds the allowed rules, it is a defect even if we looked at the part for longer than intended or at a somewhat different angle.
Do others on Elsmar agree a defect that exceeds the allowed size for the type is still a defect even if you look for more time or see the defect at an angle a bit off of 90 degrees in order to allow for curved surfaces and the customer not being at a perfect 90 degrees?
The time limit seems to set the both us and our supplier up for failure because it limits the amount of inspection. If the customer has the light at even a slightly different angle, they may quickly see paint defects they we would miss if the light is at a different angle.
Because this is an airplane part, changing suppliers would be difficult and expensive.
My spec improvement thoughts are to relax or eliminate the time limit and refine how 90 degrees is defined for the curved surfaces. How to refine the 90 degree rule, I am unsure.
What thoughts do others have?