What is the General Understanding of the AS9100 FAI Requirements_ Do You Have to Create FAIs for...

6/5/2014 What is the general understanding of the AS9100 FAI requirements? Do you have to create FAIs for every part?Is there a grandfather clause for parts that have been manufactured for years?How far back? | Linke

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=3081524&type=member&item=265167599&qid=c2697d38-7587-4494-92ab-ecfe25ad71f0&trk=groups_items_see_more-0-b-ttl 1/15

AS91XX Series - Tips and Advice 4,445 members Member

Discussions Promotions Jobs Members Search

Jack

42 comments 0Jump to most recent comment

Industry White Paper - Lab compliance trends for 2014. Ensure your lab is FDA compliance

Follow Humberto

Like 0Comment (42) 0Follow 0Reply Privately09 months ago

What is the general understanding of the AS9100 FAIrequirements? Do you have to create FAIs for every part?Is therea grandfather clause for parts that have been manufactured foryears?How far back?

Humberto Amaro

Account Manager at Tyco Electronics

Any advise is welcome.

Comments

Like 0Reply privately0Flag as inappropriate 09 months ago

Jack Fletcher

Principal at Ronin Consultancy

9100 itself does not mandate FAIs. They must be specified by the customer. While they are

intended for new produ tion or after a break in production, you will need to discuss this with new

customers for parts already in production.

Top Contributors in this Group

Larry Caracciolo

Quality Manager (contract - pro tempore) at SeattleAero LLC. Providing clever solutions for complexproblems.Follow Larry

See all members -

Your group contribution level

Start by commenting in a discussion. Group

participants get 4x the number of profile views.

Getting Started



Jim

Philip

Jo Ann

William

See all activity-

Latest Activity

lokesh narasimhaiah commented ona discussion in AS91XX Series - Tipsand Advice. Hi , Do we require partialFAIR as per AS9102, if companychanges its name.41m ago

Jack Fletcher commented on adiscussion in AS91XX Series - Tips

and Advice. Manuel L. sorryfor the inconvenience,someone could tell me ifthere is any standard

sampling AS9100-c table or militaryrule?2h ago

Manuel Loredo started a discussion inAS91XX Series - Tips and Advice. sorryfor the inconvenience, someone couldtell me if there is any standardsampling AS9100-c table or militaryrule?2h ago

Like (2) 0Reply privately0Flag as inappropriate 09 months ago

Jim Dent, LSSBB, DTM

Quality and Operational Excellence Professional in AZ

FAI's are also often required if the manufacturing location or machinery to manufacture the parts

change. When a part revision is implemented, many companies require a "delta-FAI" to validate

the features impacted by the revision are in control.

AS9102 covers the general requirements of FAI; however, some customer companies may have

specific requirements which must be flowed down the supply chain.

Tyler M., Elizabeth G. like this


Philip Scalise

Quality System Administration and Development

First Article Inspections (FAI's) are not a requirement of AS9100. While AS9102 does speaks to

the establishment and requirements for performing and documenting FAI's, the procedure itself

applies to assemblies, sub-assemblies and detail parts such as castings and forgings. AS9102

prohibits the use of prototype parts providing that normal processes are in fact utilized for parts

subject to FAI's. FAI's are not considered completed until corrective action results in the closing

of non-conformance detected in inspection. For details such as how long the FAIR is valid and

definitions of grandfathered parts, you would need to consult your purchaser order for product

provisional requirements specifically called out in purchasing notes. It matters of such gravity I

make it a rule to do so given that your customer is the ultimate arbitrator in such matters.


Jo Ann Littlefield

Sr. Quality Engineer at K&L Microwave

Jack and Philip - how then do you interpret para 7.5.1.1?

Elizabeth G., William F. like this

William Flower (1000+)

Quality Manager/Auditor/Specialist/SME 17025 test accreditation, ISO 9001,

Mil/Aero/Commercial, systems integration

Paragraph 7.5.1.1 describes a Production Process Verification as a "shall", and then says in a

NOTE that "This activity is often referred to as a first article inspection."

I notice that the phrase "first article inspection" is 1.) included only in a NOTE, and 2.) in lower

case. This suggests to me that the clause, by its own merits, is not requiring an FAI flow-down to



Elizabeth

William

About Feedback

LinkedIn Corp. 2014


9102, but rather a simpler, as stated, "Production Process Verification."

I'm eager to hear the finer points on how to relate this to Humberto's question.


Elizabeth Goldberg

Freelancer of Quality solution & electronic production process solution .

Jo Ann Littlefield

You absolutely right . AS9001 C Section 7.5.1.1 (Production Process Verification) of the standard

does require testing of a production part, which is basically the same as FAI.

This SAE Aerospace Standard establishes documentation requirements for the First Article

Inspection (FAI).

The purpose of the First Article Inspection is to provide objective evidence that all engineering

design and specification requirements are properly understood, accounted for, verified, and

documented. The purpose of this standard is to provide a consistent documentation requirement

for aerospace components First Article Inspection.

Ruth G. O., William F. like this





I believe that Humberto is asking for a general understanding of how far an FAI can go when

nothing has changed about the process, location, technician, and anything else that may affect

the characteristics of the original FAI.

I see the advice given several times over to "ask the customer." However.. a general

understanding may be helpful prior to approaching the customer, who may think adversely if the

suggested interval is too long or too short. I would like to know that one myself. What have you

seen used as a "maximum" interval?

I believe we can separate this from discussing whether we apply it as a PPV or an FAI.. whatever

it is we do, how long is it normally extended in actual use?

It would be resourceful to have that in our back pocket, so we can advise our customer "a good

rule of thumb is XX months, but it's really up to you..".

Privacy & Terms



Philip

Humberto

William


Philip Scalise


Jo Ann I can only provide you my interpretation of 7.5.1.1, which is the production process

verification. This is considered the same as first article inspection (FAIR) and therefor I would

simply default to that which I have already stated stressing the importance of the customer

purchase order and design review functions for further clearifications.


Humberto Amaro


To clarify my "general understanding" question: Is the FAI a new requirement placed on suppliers?

Is the AS9100 asking for a specific format for something that already existed and in essence

asking to generate a new standard document to put data that may already be in existence but

every company would have it in its own format? If you ask for my opinion is redundant because in

order to be spec'd in the aerospace industry all these steps have taken place in one or other

format and now is just a paperwork exercise, it makes the AS9100 auditor life easier but it

consumes supplier resources.

William F. likes this





For my part, Humberto, I've done quite a few surveillance audits for a client who wanted their own

customized look at their suppliers who have been freshly registered to 9100C.

All of them used the basic 9102 documentation format for their FAI process. However, the

intervals, criteria, and triggers were appropriately designed for the products and processes

involved.

I've seen a FAI used as the final step of a tooling dept's output, using an actual part from the

currently-running production line. If the FAI conforms, that FAI becomes the FAI for the new batch,

which starts immediately. That way, production doesn't stop while new tooling is being conformed.

In a critical-path line of thinking, that saves a lot of resources.



Philip

Victor

Snyder


Philip Scalise


Humberto, First article inspection reports (FAIR) are not new and certainly not unique to the

aerospace industry. Their existence is not the result of any aerospace standard as we currently

know them. To be perfectly honest some of the best examples of first article inspection you will

find come from the automotive industry. Further to this, I have seen them documented in so many

different formats one would be hard pressed to conclude any documented standard ever existed

for their development or presentation. Many companies not just AS companies, specifically define

the conditions under which they expect them to be performed and re-performed. For anyone to

suggest that reviewing your customers purchase order or design specification for conditional

requirements and contractual obligation is not a good idea, well I would simply consider that in

itself, very bad advice!


Victor Cook

Quality Management Auditor at AC FIRST LLC

The organization shall use a representative item from the first production run of a new part or

assembly to verify that the production processes, production documentation and tooling are

capable of producing parts and assemblies that meet requirements. So, you only have to take a

sample of the items being produced from the first run.

I personally think you should take a sample from not just the first run, but at random runs as well,

not just when changes occur.

I use to find non conformance within the production run that cause a stoppage, engineering

evaluation and disposition. If it was a supplying sub-contractor's fault, the correction of the non

conformance had to be flowed back to them as well. This caused a recall of all subsequent items

and a dispositioned fix of all items prior to the non conformance in the field.

This can happen for parts that have been manufacturing for years as well, .i.e. the process varied

out of control before it was caught.

Philip S. likes this

Snyder Rivera

Director of Operations / Chief Consultant at Success Enterprise Management Consulting

Co., Ltd.

@Humberto,



Jo Ann


7.5.1.1 says, "The organization shall use a representative item from the first production run of a

new part or assembly to verify that the production processes, production documentation and

tooling are capable of producing parts and assemblies that meet requirements. This process shall

be repeated when changes occur that invalidate the original results (e.g., engineering changes,

manufacturing process changes, tooling changes)."

This does not mean you do a first article as how AS9102 requires. It is up to your organization

how to meet this requirement of the standard. As an example, if your company's common

practice is to always do a "First Piece Run" to validate equipment and tooling setup for a new

part, or at beginning of each shift or next day production startup, then that method is fully

acceptable because this method is validating the setup, equipment operation, can still produce

the part according to drawing, process instructions, procedures, etc.

If you have changed the process, e.g., tooling, speeds, fixtures, NC program, procedures, work

instructions and/or drawing requirements, then the above method is still acceptable as long as

you have objective evidence of the validation and verification results.

Some organizations I audit have chosen to adopt AS9102 as their common practice to meet

clause 7.5.1.1 because they wanted a production process verification method to be as stringent to

AS9102 and not have to create their own methodology.

Other organizations have benchmarked portions of AS9102 and created documentation tailored for

their own specific use, but not AS9102 in full detail.

However, if you have a customer requirement to do an FAI, then it is based on the specified

criteria of the customer.

Jo Ann L., Philip S. and 2 others like this


Jo Ann Littlefield

Sr. Quality Engineer at K&L Microwave

Re: Phillip's comment on FAI reports in the automotive industry. In fact, it is the Society of

Automotive Engineers that publishes the AS9100 series of documents. Of course there is a

healthy dose of content from the large aerospace contractors.

Philip S. likes this

MURALI BADRI

Senior Manager -Quality at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

I have seen a few customers insisting on a FAI if there is lapse in production for 2 years , but



MURALI

Snyder

Humberto

Philip


again this is customer dependent and hence AS 9100 is silent on this requirement.


Snyder Rivera


Co., Ltd.

If you have not produced a part in 6 months, 1 or more years, it is better to be safe than sorry by

doing FAI or First Piece Inspection or similar production process verification to re-validate your

process for the part or assembly because it is a new production run for the same part, but you

want to make sure your process can still be capable of producing the part or assembly to the

specified requirements.

However, if you have new operator or an existing operator who has never produced the part, then

you need to do production process verification to validate the process is being done to defined

requirements and the operator understands and is able to interpret the requirements. Plus, since

a human resource is part of the process, assigning the job to a person that has had no

experience doing the product is the same as having made a change to the process because one

component (human resource) of the process has changed which affects consistency in the

process.

William F., Philip S. like this


Humberto Amaro


Let me expand on my original question: Is it a requirement of AS9100 to have an FAI if it is the

first time a customer places an order for a part number, even if the part number has been

continuously produced for other customers? In other words, if I am a customer and order a part

that I have never ordered before (but it has been manufactured continously for years) I would

request an FAI from my supplier and claim that per the AS9100 is a requirement because my

auditor is saying it is.

Philip Scalise


Humberto Ask your auditor (the auditor who is saying a first article inspection is required) to show

you specifically where it is written that you need to do a first article and most importantly, against

who's design drawing it is to be done? Different drawings have different critical features, nominal

values, upper and lower specification limits, material specification and revision level. If a first



Jack

Elizabeth

Jack

Snyder


article inspection report is required by your customer, it will be on the PO I assure you! SHOW

ME is always the question. Talk is cheap.

Snyder Rivera, MURALI BADRI like this


Jack Fletcher


A "politically correct" way to ask might be..... " I want to make sure that I adequately address the

requirements of 9100 in my response. Would you cite the specific requirements for me?"

Snyder Rivera, Lena E. like this


Elizabeth Goldberg


"7.5.1.1 Production Process Verification The organization shall use a representative item from the

first production run of a new part or assembly to verify that the production processes, production

documentation and tooling are capable of producing parts and assemblies that meet

requirements. This process shall be repeated when changes occur that invalidate the original

results, engineering changes, manufacturing process changes, tooling changes. This activity is

often referred to as first article inspection."


Jack Fletcher


" of a new part or assembly...."

Elizabeth G., Philip S. and 1 other like this

Snyder Rivera


Co., Ltd.

AS9100 does not require FAI and if an auditor toldyou FAI is required per AS9100. Then he is way

off base and does not know AS9100. FAI has to be contractually flowed down to a supplier and

must specify the method or requirement by which the FAI is to be carried out, e.g., AS9102 or

FAI criteria defined by the customer.

If you receive an NCR for a CB auditor, then I highly recommend you dispute via formal appeals



Philip

Snyder


process with the CB, because the auditor and CB must show you where in AS9100 is the

applicable clause that clearly mandates an FAI.

If you do not get satisfactory resolution, your next step is to contact IAQG.



Philip Scalise


Hi Snyder, there are some people in this group (more than one) who continue to contend we are

wrong on this point, one has (as recently as 7 hours ago) doubled down on a incorrect response

to this question which clearly asks about AS9100 and NOT AS9102. If one cant understand a

balloon comment on a blog what chance do they have of properly interpreting the standards?


Snyder Rivera


Co., Ltd.

Hi Phil, hopefully I am not one of the ones you are referring to.

I agree on your comment and it is obvious there are many that have interpreted the questions as

well as AS9100.

Granted, many of the proposed suggestions are good and make for good business practice.

However, you and I (and the few) know FAI is not required per AS9100 and the "NOTE" that says,

"This activity is often referred to as first article inspection." This statement in the "NOTE" does not

imply or make FAI a requirement. It is only a suggested guidance or clarification of a requirement,

but not intended to be interpreted as a requirement.

It is up to the organization to determine how they meet 7.5.1.1 or if they so choose to establish

an FAI process as part of compliance to 7.5.1.1 or in addition to, and as further contractually

required and defined by their customer.

William F., Philip S. like this

Victor Cook

Quality Management Auditor at AC FIRST LLC

"This activity is often referred to as first article inspection." So, is "THIS" activity a requirement or



Victor

Walter

Elizabeth

Mario A.


just a suggestion?


Walter Dimmick

Quality Engineer at Firth Rixson Forgings

It is during the planning of product realization that one determines the quality objectives and

requirements for the product. If the customer's PO/PA does not list a FAI as a requirement (highly

unlikely unless it is tertiary structure), then you do not have to perform. However, AS9100

REQUIRES you to plan and develop the processes needed for product realization.



Elizabeth Goldberg


Humberto !

If you have a design and development process and you changing one of some parts in the product

you have to do FAI its because then you create a new product . On the design and development

process we shell do a new PDR and after customers acception we shell to do CDR to approved

the changing . .

Mario A. Sigala

Quality & Engineering Manager

Humberto,

It is a requirement to validate the first production run per AS9100. That should be clear for you.

AS9102 forms and practices is just one way that you could meet AS9100 but is not the only one.

To be specific to your issue:

If your auditor requests that your company have FAIs in forms of AS9102. that is not mandatory

per AS9100, however and mostly for sure it is a requirement in the flow down of your purchase

order/contract requirements.

Look at your contracts, associated docs and PO requirements and if you could not find any place

where a AS9102 or customer form for FAI is called out you can challenge a finding and for sure

win that challenge.

Last but not least, if your company is contractually obligated to provide an FAI form in the first

PO, you could provide the last one your company did, as long as the revision of the part,



MURALI

Philip

Mario A.


processes, machinery and general conditions of manufactured have not changed since the last

time you produced such FAI. Those FAIs are valid as long as there is not a lapse of more than 2

years of continuous production as specified in AS9102.

Last note:

off the shelf parts/militaty spec parts does not require FAI.

Snyder Rivera likes this


MURALI BADRI

Senior Manager -Quality at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

Though using AS 9102 form is not mandatory as per AS 9100, I feel it is a good practise to use it

instead of reinventing the wheel and take a risk of missing out any requirement.

If you give the option to the supplier to generate their own FAI form, then you would have to spend

time to go through them and ensure they cover all the aspects. Some small suppliers will not even

know what an FAI form should consist of.

I seriously doubt any customer would not insist for an FAI and approve the same before giving the

go ahead for production part as this becomes a risk factor if the production parts are not as per

requirement.


Philip Scalise


Humberto 2 questions for you. 1) Have you reviewed the PO? 2) Does it require a FAIR?


Mario A. Sigala

Quality & Engineering Manager

I agree with Muraly, AS9102 is a good practice. That is why almost, if not all OEMs, flow down

the AS9102 requirement in their contractual documents, and from that point is mandatory and

auditable when the product/customer requirements are determined per AS9100 section 7.2.1 and

7.2.2.

In the other hand Customers shall be very diligent to include FAI requirements in their contractual

requirements being that on the contract by itself or the associated PO, otherwise they could not

"Mandate" and FAIR per As9102 to be performed.



Jim

Jeff


Jim Dent, LSSBB, DTM

Quality and Operational Excellence Professional in AZ

AS Philip asks: look at the PO. However, take a close look at the T&Cs, and your customers'

Supplier Quality Requirements Manual.

I have often found quality personnel in companies not looking at the actual customers T&C's on

their PO or aware of the requirements in their customers' Supplier Quality Manuals. Often it the

Quality Manager that is not flowing these requirement down to his own staff.

There are also times when FAI per AS9102 is specified in the contract specifications. sometimes

the contract requires the supplier to notify the customer's quality representative in advance of

conducting and FAI so the customer can have someone witness the FAI. This is very common

with some of the larger aerospace companies.

Philip S., Elizabeth G. like this

Jeff Gunter

Owner at JG Assessments LTD

long and short if it is:

include the marked up degree package , highlight pen and / or blue pen to show you reviewed it.

this is for your original copy. make sure you check the drawing notes as well as the physical

dimensions. list the type of gauge used for all physical Measurments and the Calibratin ID

number. when you check a note just put in sometimes like confirmed in that spot.

depending on the

have material cert or test reports for all custom fabrications.

if there is no raw material report needed have the C of C from the supplier. you can use a C ofC for

boards and sub modules as well.

you are correct to include the BOM

sub assemblies get their own report ( within reason) and just list them on the top page.

The IAQG website has a few nice guidelines posted on their website. If you can not find them

send me a note and I will forward the information to you. Fe

ed

ba

ck

Suggested discussion

If you only had time to

say three words to

impact humanity w

)

Home Profile Connections Jobs Interests Business Services

Advanced

50Search for people, jobs, companies, and more...



Jeff

Jack

Jack

Elizabeth


Jeff-

Philip S., Elizabeth G. like this


Jeff Moore

Director of Business Development at Renaissance Services Inc

I am very familiar with AS9102 and supported the new revision (C) writing team. I can send you

any materials you might like. The best general resource besides the AS9102 standard, is on the

AAQG website. Look at the Supply Chain Management Handbook. Section 7.2.1 not only has the

standard, but check lists and FAQ's. Many of your questions are answered in the FAQ's. Feel

free to contact me, as I have copies of all of these, as well as what is coming in Revision C soon.

Elizabeth G. likes this


Jack Fletcher


Hello Jeff! You might give a look at the thread on FAI & Digital Design data (as opposed to digital

manufacturing data).


Jack Fletcher


Hello Jeff! You might also check out the thread on FAIs done to digital manufacturing data as

opposed to digital design data and the possibility of introducing errors there.


Elizabeth Goldberg


Jeff is absolutely right . The new version of AS9100 C is requires you to manage the FAI process /

Is not just for your customers , is for you and your company to verify the new product and the

process .

And centairly its works good for the both sides .



Jeff

Jeff

SHOW MORE COMMENTS

Help Center About Press Blog Careers Advertising Talent Solutions Small Business Mobile Developers Language Upgrade Your Account

LinkedIn Corporation 2014 User Agreement Privacy Policy Community Guidelines Cookie Policy Copyright Policy Send Feedback


Jeff Moore


Thanks Jack. I saw that too, but did not have the ability to share a comment. It was blocked, and I

am not sure why. We added some digital data FAQ's to AS9102 Rev C, bit they are not published

yet. I can share if I can figure out how to post a comment. Please let anyone who wants to know

more about any AS9102 tpic to contact me, and I am happy to share. I am happy to give advie

and share materials, andof course my company helps implement and consult on larger scale.


Jeff Moore


It is also better explained in the next revision of AS9102 (C). We made quite a few additions to the

FAQ documents I sent directions for everyone to follow. New FAQ and AS9102 to be released

soon.

Digital data is a very broad topic,but iin addition to AS9102, something my company and myself

specialize in (MBE). I will take a look and see if I can provide insights, without raising more

questions than answers.

Elizabeth G. likes this

Add Comment

Add a comment...

Send me an email for each new comment.

What is the General Understanding of the AS9100 FAI Requirements_ Do You Have to Create FAIs for...

Documents

Transcript of What is the General Understanding of the AS9100 FAI Requirements_ Do You Have to Create FAIs for...