AS9102 Requirements

Having interpretation issues... Seems the spec is requiring every dimension, flag note, etc. listed on the FAI form... but looks to give some options if the dwg requirement is satisfied on another work authorizing document and objectionable evidence is present with the 9102. Well.... have QE's wanting to list everything on the 9102... and I mean everything. I think it is a huge waste of time to duplicate entry’s if there is supporting evidence that supports the "flag note"... Why list the flag note and its acceptance on the 9102 if there is already documentation supporting its completion and acceptance? Why keep doing things twice... just adds to the cost of quality. What’s the opinion of this view.. and whether it should be listed.

 

For clarification purposes - what do you mean "duplication of Flag notes" - not sure what you are doing but form 3 is to place acceptance (or rejection of feature - including notes, Form 2 is to display processes and form one is to display other products is required.

Can you provide an example of what you consider duplication

 

For the sake of the argument of why do it, let's look at two detail parts going into an assembly. Both detail parts are subject to the requirement of the same flag note. Both detail parts must have their own AS9102 report. Therefore, compliance must be evident in both reports. It doesn't matter a whit until the airplane crashes and lawyers start looking for all contributing factors, and you do not want to be the guy whose paperwork has a bunch of holes in it because it was a waste of time to write all that down twice. Lawyers love that stuff, because they get more billable hours trying to sort it all out, and now you also have the FAA on you, and maybe your customer. Now, if the flag note in question is something along the lines of, ALL HOLES CONCENTRIC +/- .0005, and the QE wants it listed for each different diameter hole in a detail part, then I would consider that excessive (although the easiest way to get around that is to add the measured concentricity value to each measured hole). In short, AS9102 reports are the pedigrees for the parts that make airplanes fly, and the intent of all the work that goes into the report is to first instill confidence that the article will perform as designed, and second to provide objective evidence of the article's origin, processing and installation. As painful as it is, we have to do these reports and be as detailed as possible at all times.

 

The primary purpose of FAI is to validate that product realization processes are capable of producing parts and assemblies that meet engineering and design requirements. A well-planned and executed FAI will provide objective evidence the manufacturer’s processes can produce compliant product and that they have understood and incorporated associated requirements.

 

Just saying... a drawing note is spelled out specifically in detail on the drawing... why re-write it on the 9102 word for word.... Doesn't have anything to do with note verification or documenting if inspected... Just enter "Note 1" on the 9102 and whether acceptable or not... No need to re-write the note word for word. The drawing is controlled and should be a part of the 9102 package so why duplicate everything for one controlled source to another document. Just duplication at a cost.

 

i think I know what you are getting at - less writing.... OK - I see that, but let's look at the other side of the coin - the customer and the person accepting the notes... hmmm! do you want to sign a piece of document that approves the process with a simple note that says "See Note 1" - Furthermore, do you want to sign and approve a process on a note that can be confused for another note? - you could see the dilemma that the individual has in approving it specially in cases where you have 600 - 1300 characteristics. You are creating additional work for everyone else because you did not want to copy paste or write once in a clear form for the history of the part. NOTE: No competent QE will sign for such document that omits information from the notes - some of them are more significant than some dimensions.

 

There will always be circumstances that need clarification.. or spelled out so no one is confused.. and a little common sense/ better planning up front can address those issues. But.... when notes are typically clear and concise... why implement something all of the time to catch a few of the time. I would rather see a process that deals with the "involved" note / flag note and keep the majority of the time lean... than to just create a process that cost more time/ money so you can catch a few times one needs clarification. That seems to be the problem now days.... just put in a process to catch everything when everything is not the problem. 9102 is clear... "Requirement".... NOTE 1. Look at note 1 on the drawing and verify it has been satisfied. If you have confusing notes... or many "note 1".. you have a different problem than making the 9102 clear.