Overwhelmed starting a new aviation related business

[Wes Bucey]

Thank you all for the excellent advices/comments. Yes the company is registered in the US and seeking to supply aircraft parts to the US government such as DLA, Navy and Air force.

I remember a couple months ago that DLA wanted a quantity of 400 of xyz that should be shipped to them within 260 days after the contract was signed. Then they required a separate quote for the First Article Test (qyt.=1) within 90 days.

The manufacturer gave a quote for 401 and informed me that I should perform the test in our facility. That when I realized things are not as easy as I thought. I spoke with one supplier about FAT and she told me," we outsource it" and she sells only parts from 2 particular companies.

I am going to seek some help from the organizations that you guys provided and I believe that more study and investigation are needed before submitting any bid to the Gov.

Thank you all for the support and I am sure that I will be back asking questions

the guy that told you "The manufacturer gave a quote for 401 and informed me that I should perform the test in our facility." simply has the wrong definition for First Article Inspection (not "test") Are you sure YOU are using the correct terminology? Which of the 401 pieces is the "first article which is to be inspected BEFORE the other 400 are even produced?"

Frankly, I'd be afraid to fly in an aircraft with parts supplied by that guy.

Don't get me wrong. There ARE some guys who have gone into the middleman business with only the credo "buy low, sell high" and made a fortune without knowing ANYTHING about the product or the protocols buyers expect, but they're pretty rare.

 

[Newcomer1]

the guy that told you "The manufacturer gave a quote for 401 and informed me that I should perform the test in our facility." simply has the wrong definition for First Article Inspection (not "test") Are you sure YOU are using the correct terminology? Which of the 401 pieces is the "first article which is to be inspected BEFORE the other 400 are even produced?"

Frankly, I'd be afraid to fly in an aircraft with parts supplied by that guy.

Don't get me wrong. There ARE some guys who have gone into the middleman business with only the credo "buy low, sell high" and made a fortune without knowing ANYTHING about the product or the protocols buyers expect, but they're pretty rare.

Wes, there could be miscommunication. I did not use inspection but used test instead, because that what it was called in the solicitation.

And I may confuse you about the 400 parts. The total needed is 400 plus 1 and that one was for the test. So there were supposed to be two quotes. That supplier/manufacurer did not offer 401 plus 400, he understood that we need only 400 plus the first article test.

Is there a difference between FAI and FAT? The Gov solicitations usually called it FAT but some suppliers used FAI.

If I am allowed to send an attachment, I will and will point out the page in question.

Thank you for taking the time to reply,

 

[Wes Bucey]

Wes, there could be miscommunication. I did not use inspection but used test instead, because that what it was called in the solicitation.

And I may confuse you about the 400 parts. The total needed is 400 plus 1 and that one was for the test. So there were supposed to be two quotes. That supplier/manufacurer did not offer 401 plus 400, he understood that we need only 400 plus the first article test.

Is there a difference between FAI and FAT? The Gov solicitations usually called it FAT but some suppliers used FAI.

If I am allowed to send an attachment, I will and will point out the page in question.

Thank you for taking the time to reply,

There's a lot of persnickety guys who visit the Cove who will cite the exact chapter and verse of AS 9100 on the definition of First Article Inspection, but practically speaking, aerospace professionals do not use the term "test" - test infers testing for function, whereas inspection "might" include function test, but almost always requires inspection of the "form" of the product to assure materials, dimensions, and finishes meet the stated requirements (customer requirements or requirements of the Standard.) Someone who uses the term "test" in conjunction with First Article," whether customer or supplier, is using a term not normally associated with either FAA or the Aerospace Standard. the First Article Inspection is usually done BEFORE full production begins on the product.

In an off-the-shelf type product, where the supplier pulls from existing inventory to fill an order, most aerospace suppliers will have a record of the First Article Inspection for the product (maybe even for each production run of a long standing product.) Most such suppliers would probably provide a copy of that inspection report, but retain the actual sample.

In a custom-made aerospace product, the usual practice is to perform the FAI and then forward BOTH the inspection report and the sample used for the FAI to the customer for the customer to confirm the results of the FAI.

My experience in aerospace was as both a supplier and customer of custom parts. As a supplier:

FWIW:
In our high tech contract machining business (all custom work for other manufacturers), each part had a Control Plan.

In addition to all the other stuff in a Control Plan (agreed to in advance by each customer), we included an Inspection Process specific to the individual part. At first we did hand measurement and recording - later, automated measuring and direct input of readings to a computer.
Among other things, the Inspection Process included:

1. an engineering drawing of the part with each dimension to be inspected tagged with a number (in the order in which the dimension was to be inspected.)
2. A part-specific inspection check list with each dimension numbered in the order it was to be inspected, listing the target dimension with tolerance (column 1), together with the type of instrument (column 2), and the actual dimension measured (column 3), and a 4th column for a redundant check of the same sample by another inspector.
3. The measured sample was tagged and traveled with the rest of the documentation in the order traveler (the document package which traveled with each step in processing to final shipment.)

We specifically designed each part-specific inspection process for the most efficient use of instruments and operator time. The numbering directed a consistent measuring process on each sample, designed to identify most likely N/C (from the FMEA) first, before wasting time on subsequent measures. Often different parts of the same part had the same dimension, but had been produced in a separate operation and thus had to be measured separately and DISTINCTLY (to identify which process went with which dimension as an aid in problem solving in the event of an N/C.)

Different inspection sheets were created for in-process SPC charting and for both First Article and Final Inspection. Above all, we wanted to eliminate opportunities for error and to make the inspection processes as efficient and capable of being replicated as possible - either by our own in-house folks doing redundant inspections or by customers doing receiving inspection.

The identity of the type of instrument used on each dimension was important. We had a chart to identify each instrument used in an inspection of a sample by serial number, thus the instrument itself could be recalled if there was a suspicion a faulty instrument out of calibration was the cause of any N/C reading.

Anybody and everybody in our organization was empowered to halt manufacture if a N/C were suspected, calling in as much help as necessary to affirm or deny the suspicion before the manufacture was restarted.

Elsewhere in the Cove, over the years, I have described how our operation evolved from traditional manufacture and inspection departments to the point where manufacturing folk performed the routine inspections and quality department folk acted as designers of each part's inspection process in collaboration with each customer, then would act as trainers for the manufacturing folk to perform those inspections, and act as arbiters if a redundant inspection was required.

Everything was slanted to make every part of the manufacturing process flow as smoothly and efficiently as possible, removing bottlenecks and choke points along the way, making liberal use of mistake proofing concepts on every aspect of our operation.

If it's important, we could probably find links to those posts.
​

 

[Newcomer1]

This is a bit old thread but now I am able to download attachment. I hope Wes, Big Jim, dsanabria, Jennifer and the rest of the experts here! be able to figure out why the Gov calls it FAT? I hope it is the same as FAI.

This attachment is the typical of most solicitation from US Gov.
The item in question is in page#18.
If you have the time to look into that page, I appreciate it.
Remember, I have never seen FAI but FAT, however, I am new to the business and may easily had missed something.

Thank so much...

 

[Wes Bucey]

This is a bit old thread but now I am able to download attachment. I hope Wes, Big Jim, dsanabria, Jennifer and the rest of the experts here! be able to figure out why the Gov calls it FAT? I hope it is the same as FAI.

This attachment is the typical of most solicitation from US Gov.
The item in question is in page#18.
If you have the time to look into that page, I appreciate it.
Remember, I have never seen FAI but FAT, however, I am new to the business and may easily had missed something.

Thank so much...

I amend my previous answers to recall "some" requirements for a functional test of a product.
Acronyms float in my brain, having seen so many variations. In this case, however, there is no mystery - FAT = First Article Test. Functional tests may be required of any product, but are often mandatory on some electronic and mechanical products. In such cases, the exact type of testing is often prescribed, listing the conditions under which the test is to be performed. I presume this is what is meant by the boldface red text in this quote from page 18.

This line item signifies the First Article Test requirement (FAT). See clauses for information concerning
the FAT requirement. Offers that do not cite a price for this line item shall be evaluated under the
assumption that there is no separate charge for the FAT. In the event the FAT requirement is waived, no award
will be made for this line item .
FOB: DELIVERY DATE: 90 DAYS ADO
​

Functional tests can be (I haven't looked for or at the "clauses") very exacting and expensive to perform, depending on the product. They often require specialized equipment and are often outsourced to certified testing facilities. This is definitely a :ca: requirement, not to be taken lightly.

 

[dsanabria]

This is a bit old thread but now I am able to download attachment. I hope Wes, Big Jim, dsanabria, Jennifer and the rest of the experts here! be able to figure out why the Gov calls it FAT? I hope it is the same as FAI.

This attachment is the typical of most solicitation from US Gov.
The item in question is in page#18.
If you have the time to look into that page, I appreciate it.
Remember, I have never seen FAI but FAT, however, I am new to the business and may easily had missed something.

Thank so much...

Check out the following link - it is a lot of reading but it is educational and lets you know what to expect.

http://guidebook.dcma.mil/226/226-2/dc10-170.htm

 

[DarrellH]

In my experience if an aerospace contractor is asking you if you are AS9100 / ISO 9000 accredited, you should not be worried about / embarrassed, to say,

No, I am a start up can you help me please, if there are good commercial reasons to use you, they will be only too pleased to support you.

For info AS9102 is not an approval / accreditation, it is requirements (a methodology) for presenting inspection results / configuration control.

Good luck!

 

[Newcomer1]

In my experience if an aerospace contractor is asking you if you are AS9100 / ISO 9000 accredited, you should not be worried about / embarrassed, to say,

No, I am a start up can you help me please, if there are good commercial reasons to use you, they will be only too pleased to support you.

For info AS9102 is not an approval / accreditation, it is requirements (a methodology) for presenting inspection results / configuration control.

Good luck!

Thanks so much Darrell,

After some research, I found out that AS9120 (distributor) applies to me as opposed to AS9100 which applies to manufacturer. The manufacturer should perform First Article Test if required but I heard that some outsource this test to other companies.

I have spoken with a person who has been in this business for a while and he told me that he did his own! I think he mentioned 15-20 pages manual and since he does not have to deal with the primes such as Lockheed Martin and others, he is fine. The Gov requires that you shall conform to the standard but not necessarily accredited.

I will not write the manual if I go that route but will let professionals do it. It is an expensive though and you need 2 companies, one to help you develop it and the other to certify.

Regards,

 

[silentrunning]

We supply to a company parts for resale to the aviation industry. I do all the inspection (AS9102), and have all Special Processes performed by NADCAP approved suppliers. I send him all the documentation and he in turn packages and sells the parts. He has no inspection equipment but just uses my paperwork as is. He does audit us once a year just to verify our documentation. I'm not sure if this will be any help to you, but I thought I would throw it in as food for thought.

 

[Wes Bucey]

We supply to a company parts for resale to the aviation industry. I do all the inspection (AS9102), and have all Special Processes performed by NADCAP approved suppliers. I send him all the documentation and he in turn packages and sells the parts. He has no inspection equipment but just uses my paperwork as is. He does audit us once a year just to verify our documentation. I'm not sure if this will be any help to you, but I thought I would throw it in as food for thought.

If your organization is registered to the SAE aerospace Standard, AND your organization's customer maintains a strict "chain of possession," his downstream customers should be satisfied. This really all goes back to the concept of "traceability" for each link in the supply chain - no one says each link has to perform independent tests if sufficient safeguards to ensure traceability are in place.