Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
The aerospace supply chain can be depicted as a pyramid with a few major
Vehicle, Airframe and Propulsion Manufacturers (Tier 1) at the top supported by
Integrators, Major Assemblers, Component Designers, Specialty Electronics and
Software Designers at the 2nd and 3rd Tiers, and Make-to-print Machine Shops
and Fabricators at Tier 4. Lower in the pyramid are Distributors and Detail
Hardware providers and Raw Material manufacturers. Across all six tiers are
organizations that provide Special Processes (an operation that cannot be
verified afterward by non-destructive examination.)
Standards published exclusively within the Americas have a suffix of 90xx and an
AS prefix. These standards may be adopted internationally and when this
happens the number is changed to a 91xx-series standard. All AS standards are
published by the SAE. European standards are published by the AeroSpace and
Defense (ASD) organization and carry an EN suffix. The Society of Japanese
Aerospace Companies publishes the standards in Japan using either a JIS Q or
a SJAC prefix. SDOs in Brazil, China, Korea, Russia and other nations publish
some of the IAQG standards, using the same numeric suffix identification or
other cross reference to the base standards.
Additional guides are also published and individual IAQG sectors have published
their own standards.
The aerospace industry recognized in the mid-90s that minimal compliance with
ISO 9001 was inadequate to address the products used within the industry. Most
of the Tier 1 companies were adding additional requirements to ISO 9001 when
they communicated their expectations for a quality management system to their
suppliers. This resulted in a supplier receiving multiple expectations from their
customers.
ISO 9001 was selected as the base for these industry expectations. This allowed
the industry to build upon a proven quality management system and the
supporting certification structure. The industry expectations added regulatory,
safety, reliability and maintainability requirements.
The industry strongly supports the year 2000 additions to ISO 9001. A process
based quality management system accommodates the complexity of the industry
products and products. Customer satisfaction has long been the objective of the
industry and establishing an expectation for continual improvement assures that
the industry continues to meet the ever increasing expectations of our customers.
When the ISO 9001 standard was revised in 2000 the requirement for achieving
continual improvement was added. This was a significant addition. However
the very nature of the standard mandates that it be suitable for everything from
anvils to airplanes and that it address the needs of the service industries such as
hotels and hospitals as well as products. The aerospace industry, recognizing
that the ISO 9001 standard, while providing an excellent base was not adequate
for the specific needs of the industry added a series of additional expectations.
These included the requirement for including variability reduction as a portion of
the organization’s continual improvement process. All processes benefit when
operated near nominal, allowing a more robust interaction with other processes
and reducing the probability that the process will drift outside of its boundary
conditions.
The standard requires that a “trace” be maintained between the standard, the
organizations Quality Manual and the implementing procedures. This is to
facilitate the review of the quality system by those charged with its verification.
During the production process adequate means must be provided to assure the
accountability of product. This should include evidence that all operations have
been satisfactorily completed. Consideration should be given to the elimination of
the generation of foreign objects and if this is not possible then adequate means
must be provided to remove these items prior to subsequent operations. The
processes should take into account the potential for environmental influences
and make adequate provisions for the protection of employees, those using the
product and the facilities where the product is produced. Frequently a number of
quality characteristics are related to the execution of skill-related operations. The
criteria associated with these operations should be specified. The extent of the
information contained within the work instructions should be consistent with the
knowledge level of those performing the work.
The 9100 standard contains two important concepts. The first is the performance
of verification activities associated with assuring that the initial production items
conform to the engineering requirements and intent. Typically referred to as First
Article Inspection (FAI), this process id always required when making an initial
production run or when a change is made to the process that is significant
enough to warrant a new review for conformity. Unless specified by contract
9102, FAI, is not mandatory, however it does provide excellent guidance for
those developing the process.
The 9102 standard provides the requirements for the performance of First Article
Inspection (FAI). These are performed to verify that the initial production meets
all of the design requirements. This process should verify that the manufacturing
planning is correct, contains the right sequence of activities and appropriate
verification activities. This process applies to all levels of parts from castings and
forgings, to machined items and full assemblies. The verification is performed by
the supplier and includes the collection of appropriate quantitative data. Where
special processes are required specific attention must be paid to assure
compliance.
The FAI includes the verification of all design characteristics. This is typically
accomplished by marking up (or ballooning) the engineering drawing and then
recording the results of each of these measurements. When material and special
processes are involved the certification status of those performing the work
should be verified. A review of the manufacturing planning should include
verification that all processes are specified and properly sequenced. Information
regarding tooling and gaging should be recorded. And all tests and certifications
verified. Nonconformances should be documented and dispositioned, including a
decision on the need to conduct additional verifications from the next production
run.
The methods used to perform the FAI and the extent is the responsibility of the
organization making the part unless specific contractual requirements exist. A
change of the design requirements or the manufacturing process may require a
partial or complete FAI to be performed.
The process for the management of Key Characteristics is specified in the 9103
standard. A Key Characteristic is defined as “the feature of a material or part
whose variation has a significant influence on the fit, performance, service life or
manufacturability” of the product. These features can include dimensional
features such as thickness, diameter, length, hole location, etc., chemical
concentrations or time, pressure, speed, voltage output, etc.
The intent is to drive improvement of the process or processes that influence the
generation of the Key Characteristic. Ideally the process should be operated to
cause the characteristic to be produced as close to nominal as possible with a
minimum of variation. The typical methodology includes understanding the
process, using appropriate tools to monitor the process, identification of the
factor(s) that influence variation and bringing these parameters into statistical
control, then reducing this variation.
Records Retention
During the design of the quality management system attention must be given to
the retention of records. The 9130 standard provides direction on this topic. In
addition, a guidance document (ARP9034) is being developed to address the
considerations associated with the long term retention and retrieval of digital
data. The products that we produce last for over 50 years and it’s essential that
during the product life the design data can be readily accessed.
Software Quality
Special processes
In addition to the 9100 quality management system, the IAQG has developed two
other QMS’ one for use with Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul systems (9110)
and the other for Distributors (9120). The Distributor system is used by those
“pass through” stockiest and distributors that handle parts and supplies used in
aerospace products. The standard is built upon ISO 9001 and 9100, but only
applies necessary system requirements. It does include expectations for their
management of their suppliers. An ICOP registration process has just begun.
The 9110 standard for Repair Stations is developed for use by manufacturers
and airlines for flow down to those providing maintenance, repair and overhaul
services. They expect suppliers that have defined quality management systems
with reputable verification. This standard is developing interest from airlines and
the military. The standard is based upon ISO 9001 and the 9100 standard plus
includes the expectations of the civil aviation authorities (FAA/JAA 145). Like the
9100 and the 9120 standards, an ICOP process for registration is also available.
Over two years ago the aerospace industry identified eleven requirements of a
global QMS evaluation system.
Single global standard
Harmonized system of application
Inter-National accreditation control
Approved certified bodies and registrars
Approved aerospace auditors
Global acceptance by supplier base
Data easily available to all participants
Active industry participation
One audit accepted by primes
Oversight /control by IAQG and Sectors
Inter-National Aviation Authority endorsement
All but the last item have been achieved. A tremendous accomplishment when
the global nature of our business is understood. The remaining action, an
endorsement by the regulators, must await demonstrated performance by the
industry of the process.
The ICOP process includes requirements for the Accreditation Boards and
CRBs, the auditors and the associated training. The system includes
requirements for the minimum audit time and reporting the results of the audits.
The industry is responsible to provide oversight for the process, to report
problems with the registrars and their auditors and to track the performance of
the suppliers and their associated registrars.
The industry leaders are listening. They have aggressively supported a common
system of standards and support structure and they are implementing this
system. The result is the elimination of redundant quality management system
assessments and a clearer communication of industry expectations.