Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision Both sides next revision
articles:as9100d_oe_requirements-2 [2019/08/18 21:30]
rrandall
articles:as9100d_oe_requirements-2 [2019/08/18 21:32]
rrandall
Line 52: Line 52:
 <note important>​**#​ 15** \\ The IAQG official [[https://​www.sae.org/​iaqg/​projects/​9100-2016_clarification_table.pdf|"​AS 9100:2016 Series Clarifications"​]] states: //Clause 8.5.1.n requires evidence that all production and inspection/​verification operation steps have been completed as planned or otherwise documented and authorized. Examples of evidence can include stamps, electronic signatures, initials, or names.//</​note>​ <note important>​**#​ 15** \\ The IAQG official [[https://​www.sae.org/​iaqg/​projects/​9100-2016_clarification_table.pdf|"​AS 9100:2016 Series Clarifications"​]] states: //Clause 8.5.1.n requires evidence that all production and inspection/​verification operation steps have been completed as planned or otherwise documented and authorized. Examples of evidence can include stamps, electronic signatures, initials, or names.//</​note>​
  
-<note important>​**#​ 18** \\ In response to the question: "//​Does 9100 require production process verification of all assemblies?//",​ the IAQG official [[https://​www.sae.org/​iaqg/​projects/​9100-2016_clarification_table.pdf|"​AS 9100:2016 Series Clarifications"​]] states: //It depends. The organization defines its production process verification process to cover parts and assemblies. Assembly can include subassemblies,​ component assemblies, and even final product.// \\ In response to the question: "//​Does 9100 mandate that a Production Process Verification be performed and the fixture verified to the first article if the tooling fixtures in the factory have been disassembled and moved to another location within the same facility?//",​ the IAQG official [[https://​www.sae.org/​iaqg/​projects/​9100-2016_clarification_table.pdf|"​AS 9100:2016 Series Clarifications"​]] states: "//​Yes. It is expected that the organization would have some tool verification activity, commensurate with the amount of tool disassembly,​ to ensure the fixture is still capable of building conforming hardware. It is thought that disassembly and reassembly of a fixture would be specified as one of the requirements that would invalidate the previous PPV.//"​ \\ the IAQG official [[https://​www.sae.org/​iaqg/​projects/​9100-2016_clarification_table.pdf|"​AS 9100:2016 Series Clarifications"​]] also provides clarification of this clause stating: "//The first clause 8.5.1.3 requirement was introduced so all organizations,​ including those with small production quantities (such as in Space industry), could apply the Production Process Validation (PPV) instead of identifying it as not applicable (exclusion). The Team wanted to open the door for other “process” methods to perform PPV that may be implemented to provide an alternative methodology to the previously written PPV requirement. The team decided to keep the second requirement for all the organizations as a FAI can be done according to internal rules (or according to the 9102 when required by contract). \\ The first paragraph was added since only performing a FAI does not provide the warranty that the whole "​production"​ process will be able to product parts that meet requirements. Actually, it only provides the warranty that the "​manufacturing"​ process is able to "​manufacture"​ a product compliant with the requirements relating to the "​product."​ The other requirements regarding the "​production"​ process (in terms of quantities to produce, lead-time, cost constraints,​ ...) cannot be verified with only a FAI. It was not the team's intent to require PPAP or process capability for each production process.+<note important>​**#​ 18** \\ In response to the question: "//​Does 9100 require production process verification of all assemblies?//",​ the IAQG official [[https://​www.sae.org/​iaqg/​projects/​9100-2016_clarification_table.pdf|"​AS 9100:2016 Series Clarifications"​]] states: //It depends. The organization defines its production process verification process to cover parts and assemblies. Assembly can include subassemblies,​ component assemblies, and even final product.// \\ In response to the question: "//​Does 9100 mandate that a Production Process Verification be performed and the fixture verified to the first article if the tooling fixtures in the factory have been disassembled and moved to another location within the same facility?//",​ the IAQG official [[https://​www.sae.org/​iaqg/​projects/​9100-2016_clarification_table.pdf|"​AS 9100:2016 Series Clarifications"​]] states: "//​Yes. It is expected that the organization would have some tool verification activity, commensurate with the amount of tool disassembly,​ to ensure the fixture is still capable of building conforming hardware. It is thought that disassembly and reassembly of a fixture would be specified as one of the requirements that would invalidate the previous PPV.//"​ \\ The IAQG official [[https://​www.sae.org/​iaqg/​projects/​9100-2016_clarification_table.pdf|"​AS 9100:2016 Series Clarifications"​]] also provides clarification of this clause stating: "//The first clause 8.5.1.3 requirement was introduced so all organizations,​ including those with small production quantities (such as in Space industry), could apply the Production Process Validation (PPV) instead of identifying it as not applicable (exclusion). The Team wanted to open the door for other “process” methods to perform PPV that may be implemented to provide an alternative methodology to the previously written PPV requirement. The team decided to keep the second requirement for all the organizations as a FAI can be done according to internal rules (or according to the 9102 when required by contract). \\ The first paragraph was added since only performing a FAI does not provide the warranty that the whole "​production"​ process will be able to product parts that meet requirements. Actually, it only provides the warranty that the "​manufacturing"​ process is able to "​manufacture"​ a product compliant with the requirements relating to the "​product."​ The other requirements regarding the "​production"​ process (in terms of quantities to produce, lead-time, cost constraints,​ ...) cannot be verified with only a FAI. It was not the team's intent to require PPAP or process capability for each production process.
 Regarding the "​records"​ we require the organization to retain documented information on how they ensure production process verification is implemented.//"</​note>​ Regarding the "​records"​ we require the organization to retain documented information on how they ensure production process verification is implemented.//"</​note>​