Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

Specifications Aerospace - Who is responsible for providing the correct specification(s)

mattador78

Involved In Discussions
#1
Just a quick question who fundamentally is responsible for providing the correct specification's, stay with me on this. Recently we have been provided by customers with old MIL SPECS which are 40 years out of date and obviously several revisions behind. We have been informing the customers of this and what we know to be the latest revision for the SPEC. However, what if we are wrong should it not be the customer providing us with the correct information and if it is wrong surely it is their responsibility to discover the correct one. We plate parts for people where they ask for the items to be ROSH and WEE compliant and we comply with that for them, in that regard the responsibility is on the customer to know what finish they need for the product they have manufactured not for us to advise them on what they need on the finished product. Would this not be the same with aerospace or similar industries?
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#2
What if the parts you are plating are for a B-52? And the contract specifications have not been updated since the 1970’s? Some old military parts still invoke old mil stds. It is up to the customers to confirm the revision level of the specs to be used, as many times, they are contractually specified.
 

mattador78

Involved In Discussions
#3
That's the point we are after as I say we are only advising customers that we know that the spec has been superseded and we assumed it was their responsibility to know what they required, however some of these items are commercial yet we are still provided with a MIL-SPEC that is where we have the difficulties. Speaking of the B-52 we cant do their parts as its Boeing, but we do a lot for Spitfires as a local company here reconditions them, its a really beautiful aircraft to look at not like the BUFF lol
 
#4
If you are providing services per AS9100, then this would apply:

"8.2.3 Review of the Requirements for Products and Services
8.2.3.1 The organization shall ensure that it has the ability to meet the requirements for products and services to be
offered to customers. The organization shall conduct a review before committing to supply products and services
to the customer, to include:
a. requirements specified by the customer.....
The customer requirements shall be confirmed by the organization before acceptance, when the customer does not provide
a documented statement of their requirements."

Rule of thumb is to use the most recent revision of a standards unless directed otherwise by the customer.
 

Eredhel

Quality Manager
#5
Have you asked them specifically which Rev they want? I had a customer once that asked for a Rev on a certain process that was out of date and no longer available. Once we let them know they checked on the newest Rev and approved it. But they need to let you know which Rev they want, and then you can go from there.

Edit: Although I do have experience with government contracts where you can't get answers in time. We've no quoted those.
 

mattador78

Involved In Discussions
#6
We are asking its just some don't know! We are new in the aerospace market and its amazing how dumb some of our customers are, we are being very thorough in our outlook at the moment as we move towards certification and it is working well for us, its just that as mentioned we would assume that clause 8.2 would apply to the customer before it came to us i.e. they would know what the end user wants. We don't have this problem with MBDA its some of the smaller companies which we do work for that are either not checking or just relying on us to correct. As Sidney pointed out it could be for a historic part in that regard we don't know what its going on, therefore if we advise to an updated spec but it should have been produced to an older one who is responsible then?
 
#7
If you are providing services per AS9100, then this would apply:

"8.2.3 Review of the Requirements for Products and Services
8.2.3.1 The organization shall ensure that it has the ability to meet the requirements for products and services to be
offered to customers. The organization shall conduct a review before committing to supply products and services
to the customer, to include:
a. requirements specified by the customer.....
The customer requirements shall be confirmed by the organization before acceptance, when the customer does not provide
a documented statement of their requirements."

Rule of thumb is to use the most recent revision of a standards unless directed otherwise by the customer.
That's dangerous. It's far better to seek clarification, instead of using "rules of thumb" which comes from an old British saying about spousal abuse...
 
#8
That's dangerous. It's far better to seek clarification, instead of using "rules of thumb" which comes from an old British saying about spousal abuse...
You are correct there. I live in the 17025 regulated world where the most recent revision of any standard is required unless the customer wants (or agrees to) an older version.

Choice of revisions is always a part of the contract review conversation. The whole AS9100 8.2.3 Review section prompts a dialog between you and your customer. If you have concerns regarding obsolete MIL SPECs being requested you are really obligated to bring that up and come to a mutual resolution. You can't force them to be smart, but you can at least inform them when they might be wrong.

Mattador 78 appears to be in a tough position, as he seems to fear that his customer doesn't understand the requirements of their customer - the end user.
 
#9
You are correct there. I live in the 17025 regulated world where the most recent revision of any standard is required unless the customer wants (or agrees to) an older version.

Choice of revisions is always a part of the contract review conversation. The whole AS9100 8.2.3 Review section prompts a dialog between you and your customer. If you have concerns regarding obsolete MIL SPECs being requested you are really obligated to bring that up and come to a mutual resolution. You can't force them to be smart, but you can at least inform them when they might be wrong.

Mattador 78 appears to be in a tough position, as he seems to fear that his customer doesn't understand the requirements of their customer - the end user.
Which, when included in the dialog with the client, by informed, competent sales people (or whomever) makes the difference between a "compliance" type QMS and a "Customer Focused" QMS which bring value to the supplier/client relationship...
 

mattador78

Involved In Discussions
#10
You are correct there. I live in the 17025 regulated world where the most recent revision of any standard is required unless the customer wants (or agrees to) an older version.

Choice of revisions is always a part of the contract review conversation. The whole AS9100 8.2.3 Review section prompts a dialog between you and your customer. If you have concerns regarding obsolete MIL SPECs being requested you are really obligated to bring that up and come to a mutual resolution. You can't force them to be smart, but you can at least inform them when they might be wrong.

Mattador 78 appears to be in a tough position, as he seems to fear that his customer doesn't understand the requirements of their customer - the end user.
Its not fear its more quizzical as to how they don't know but expect us to know what they want. We are running on the principle we inform them that there is a more recent specification and what that is. it just questions how you can issue a cofc for an "obsolete" specification. This comes back to how far down the chain the customer is I suppose. However naming no names I was dealing with a large company the other day who questioned a cofc we supplied them as it was to the 5th revision and they didn't have a copy of that only the 4th which hadn't been used for 6 months I sent them a copy to help them out :blowup:
 
Top Bottom