Subject |
Question |
Answer |
|---|---|---|
| Training | Can the APQP and PPAP SMIG recommend PPAP Coordinator/CARe training | The following training has been reviewed by team members and can be confirmed as fulfilling the syllabus for PPAP Coordinator and CARe Training: https://industryforum.co.uk/courses/as13100-aligned-rm13145-ppap-co-ordinator-and-care-training-course/ |
| Legacy parts | Does AS13100 apply to Legacy Hardware? | APQP/PPAP is not applicable, unless there is a change going forward according to §13.3 in AS13100 |
| Legacy parts | If there is a process or design change on a Legacy Hardware, is the scope then for the APQP/PPAP elements the entire manufacturing process for the part, or only the changed process? | As a minimum – the scope should be what is changing with regards to the design / process and what this affects. The scope for the APQP/PPAP elements should be the changed process plus any other process steps or features that might be affected by the change. |
| Legacy parts | If I have a legacy assembly where a PPAP currently does not exist and I change the machining source of one of the many components does this prompt a requirement for PPAP on the deliverable assembly? | This will be determined by the customer based on their applicability rules. For example, this could be the potential impact on the delivery assembly. If there is no impact, then there should be no requirement for PPAP on the delivery assembly. It would be sufficient with PPAP on the component level. |
| MSA | If during the planning phase how many parts are produced to execute effective MSA studies? i.e., if MSA studies are prior to FAI then it is confusing how much data is needed to conduct an effective MSA if FAI has not been submitted? | Consult RM13003 for specifics. MSA does not necessarily require multiple parts. It requires multiple measurements. This depends on the consistency of the parts being measured. If there is a lot of manufacturing variation (a manual dressing operation) then its best to include some part samples. If its a CNC operation, on a solid part then the part variation will be small compared to the measurement error. You MSA plan needs to think about the "in part variation" and act accordingly. |
| MSA | If we change some control instrument for measuring, in that case, do we need to repeat some elements of PPAP and APQP? | According to table 3 in AS13100, a new verification device requires MSA, so the PPAP file shall be updated with the new MSA results. PPAP submission is not required. |
| PPAP | AS13100 section 16.6.9 states: "The organization shall conduct initial manufacturing performance studies, as part of the capacity verification and determine the Dimensional / Nondimensional results, see RM13145." Please advise what is intended for "nondimensional results". |
Non dimensional results can be attribute data. e.g., Defects per unit from NDT inspection. Both Dimensional and Non-dimensional results relating to a product provides the base for process performance measures. This means results can be evaluated against targets to confirm process performance means requirements, e.g., Defects per Unit targets. |
| Raw materials | Do raw material, non-1st tier suppliers send the PPAP to the direct customer (distributors) or the Prime(s) for approval, or both? | Raw material as defined by AS13100 generally do not require APQP (see Table 1). It is important to view the definitions and table 1 within AS13100 and ensure the product you are considering means these definitions. Raw material suppliers is required to be ISO 9001 registered, see Table 2 in AS13100. |
| Raw materials | Should specification revisions (eg AMS 5662P) be considered product changes even though the supplier does not have design authority i.e., raw material/barstock? | Raw material as defined by AS13100 generally do not require APQP (see Table 1). It is important to view the definitions and table 1 within AS13100 and ensure the product you are considering means these definitions. Raw material suppliers are required to be ISO 9001 registered, see Table 2 in AS13100. |
| Standard parts | When it comes to PFMEA and needing to know where product is being used, how does this apply to Aerospace Standard catalog parts? For this type of product, companies are on a QPL listing and follow a part numbering system specified by the Aerospace Standard. It is quite common for Customers to not identify where they are putting catalog product on aircraft. Will it be acceptable to not understand where all products are being utilized in the field? | Industry Standard Parts, COTS, etc. as defined by AS13100 generally do not require APQP. It is important to view the definitions within AS13100 and ensure the product you are considering means these definitions. |
|
AS13100 |
I have a query regarding. Clause 13.3 in AS13100. Request your guidance on the same. In Clause 13.3 Scope (APQP) – Supplemental Requirements "Change of tooling that is not Specific to Process and an equivalent." is put as a separate bullet point item under All or some phases of APQP applicable to. Is this placement of the bullet point correct or is this a part of the Examples of negligible process change? |
It is part of "Examples of negligible process change“ and recognize that the bullet should be indented. |