AESQ Supplier Forum - AS13100 Overview (AS13100 General Questions)
|Is it too soon to buy the AS13100 standard, because it will be changing so often?||
AS13100 will only change every 5 years. It is the Reference Manuals (RMs) that will be updated frequently in order to capture new information and best practice. The RMs are available for free download from the AESQ website at this link: https://aesq.sae-itc.com/content/aesq-documents
|Will OEM Supplier Requirement Standards be replaced by AS13100 any time in the future? (i.e. SABRe of Rolls Royce)||
There will always be a need for some unique OEM requirements (e.g., IT interfaces), different acceptance threshold values, etc., but the goal of AESQ is to minimize these wherever possible. AS13100 is a major step in this direction, but the journey is not complete yet.
|Is the method for Design Risk Analysis standardized across the OEMs? (i.e. GE, RR, Safran, & Pratt)||
AS13100 has defined Design FMEA as the method of Design Risk Analysis (see RM13004). There may be a transition period to move from any current methods to the use of DFMEA that you will be informed about by the customer.
|Can you tell us what is different from TS16949 in Automotive? It looks to be very similar for those of us who supply both industries.||
There are some elements that are very similar e.g. the auditing approach. But there are too many differences to list here.
|Are you planning for a central database that will have a list of AS13100 approved suppliers across the Globe?||
Not at this time.
|Please define Every manufacturing process.||
Every manufacturing process is used to manufacture a customer part number e.g. CNC machining, heat treatment, assembly, and testing.
|GE just came out with a new revision of S-1002 with some very specific FAIR ballooning requirements that are different from what we have done in the past. Will this process also be standardized across all OEMs?||
This is currently a GE specific requirement. GE is willing to discuss with the AESQ team to rationalize an industry approach to ballooning.
|Has any thought been given to how onerous this overall approach is for small organizations, w/ staffing of <25. Both the volume of tasks and ancillary investment $ (training, standards, auditing). Our organization has 0 DPPM over 3 years, 98% OTD, and delivered cost reductions of 5-10% across all products. How do we make this fit without adding resources and overhead to the products?||
There are very few 'new requirements' here, rather they are harmonized to reduce the overall number of requirements and should be seen as a cost saving opportunity. The audit approach outlined for example is exactly the same as for Rolls-Royce since 2012.
|Are legacy parts subject to the PPAP process?||
No - there is no intent to retrospectively apply APQP and/or PPAP to legacy parts. The customer will specify the need for APQP / PPAP in new contracts for new products or engineering changes or change of source.
|A common question for all Prime customers. How is AS13100 going to be applied to Legacy PN and Contracts where there is no budget to apply/develop APQP on mature programs and PNs?||There are very few 'new requirements' here so we expect that most suppliers are compliant with the majority of the requirements already. For new requirements such as APQP and PPAP then these only apply for new or changed products, or changes to product source and are therefore not retrospective.|
|All for this initiative but Program Management and Site Leadership are only going to see a significant increase in cost if this is planned to be retroactively applied to programs that are +20 years old?||
There are very few 'new requirements' here so we expect that most suppliers are compliant with the majority of the requirements already. For new requirements such as APQP and PPAP then these only apply for new or changed products, or changes to product source and are therefore not retrospective.
|I understand the flow down from the airframers to the Engines Manufacturers to their equipment suppliers. What is fuzzy is the flowdown to Distributors and from them, to raw materials manufacturers such as Mills. For them, APQP, PPAP, FAIR, Zero Defects, Quality Clinic, and any other advanced quality concepts like metrology, gage R&R, etc. is either unknown or hard to understand, apply and/or implement.||
Please refer to Table 1 of AS13100 to see that many requirements do not apply to these types of suppliers.
|Has the 13000 series of standards taken into consideration any of the Regulatory (FAA, CAA, etc.) requirements, or are these items still considered customer specific requirements?||
The AESQ requirements have always tried to ensure that their requirements include all customer, regulatory, and industry requirements that are applicable. Where these have been harmonized then they are included in the AS13100 standard and RMs.
|Does it replace the AS9102 standard too?||No, AS13100 adds supplementary requirements to AS9102, and we are working with the AS9102 writing team to try and get these added to the revised standard.|
|What are the core differences between Chapter B 9145 and what is already in AS9145, and reasons for replicating it?||Chapter B does not replicate anything in AS9145, it requires AS9145 and adds some supplementary requirements that the OEMs identified as requirements based on learning from AS9145 deployment.|
|Will customers begin to provide DFMEAs for manufactures to complete PFMEAs properly? This has been a point of struggle implementing the prior standards as many do not provide DFEMAs, therefore, leaving manufactures (that are not designed responsible) with a very limited scope of risk assessment.||It may not be possible to provide a physical copy of a DFMEA to complete the PFMEA due to IPR issues. However, it is not what you really want as there is no direct link from one to the other anyway. What you need is a design engineer, armed with a DFMEA, to interpret it and provide answers to the effects and severity columns. Even without the DFMEA, there is no excuse not to develop the PFMEA and use manufacturing experience to complete effects and severity.|
|Will future updates take into consideration the integration of EHS&Q management systems?||This was seen as out of scope for this version, but it may be considered in the future.|
|Similarly, NADCAP compliance can be checked on their website. Is that happening to AS13100?||There are no plans to do that at this time.|
|Are we expected to request PFMEA to all current suppliers for all parts?||Where this was already a requirement of the OEM requirements, then yes. Where it was not previously a requirement, then the customer will specify the use of APQP or PPAP that requires FMEA to be completed. A supplier may also be required to complete one following a major quality issue as part of the investigation and corrective action.|
|For INDUSTRY STANDARD RAW MATERIAL MANUFACTURER - ISO9001 is required. Are the Reference 9100D:09/2016 requirements also applicable?||Please refer to Table 1 of AS13100 to see which of the requirements apply to this type of supplier.|
|With no direct reference or exception to AS9145 requirements of how to apply to legacy parts, how exactly will legacy parts be handled? Simply put, will Aviation refrain from requiring APQP/PPAP on legacy parts regardless of any change or will it be on a case-by-case basis?||Refer to S-1000/S-1002 requirement wording|
|Can PFMEA be grouped by product or process type? eg PFMEA for shrouds, or nozzles as a group; PFMEA for a particular mnft process like mill or EDM? Is GE willing to share its own PFMEA forms with suppliers? Parts previously approved via eCAV & SPS would not require FMEA update, correct?||A Process FMEA is required for a specific part number. A useful input to a PFMEA is the Reference PFMEAs, these are sometimes also known as ‘baseline FMEA’ or ‘Unit’ FMEAs. GE is using the industry PFMEA template available on SCMH. Previously approved parts would not be subject to PFMEAs unless GE requests for a specific need.|
|Who at GE will approve and decide PPAP elements, the PQE?||Yes, The responsible PQE for a specific supplier|
|Could you please clarify how process changes not related to significant operations will be managed and approved by who? I mean if partial FAI / PPAP needs to be submitted in e-CAV, or if change can be approved internally, Reading 13100 Section 13.3 process change, negligible, etc is not very clear to me||Process changes will be handled the same as currently required; the change must be documented in eCAV and verification of impacted characteristics must be completed. In 2023, suppliers will be required to complete updates to PPAP elements if the elements were part of the original PPAP approval.|
|Will there be a familiarization session for Suppliers on the use of the QPA tool in eCAV?||yes; coming soon.|
|Will suppliers be required to reference AS13100 on certificates of conformance?||No, S-1000 should continue to be referenced|
|Is there going to be a common set of customer (AESQ companies) specific requirements for AS9145 PPAP?||There will be a common set of requirements, but there may be some customer specific requirements remaining.|
|What is the process for AS13100 certification?||AS13100 is not a certifiable standard. Compliance will be assured through self-auditing, annual reporting plus customer audit (2nd party) as required today.|
|Will AS13100 replace AS9100?||No, AS13100 is supplementary to the requirements of AS9100.|
|We do not supply the engine makers directly – will this standard be flowed down to use?||Yes, it is applicable to the entire aero engine supply chain.|
|For Quality Auditor Training, will the AS13100 requirements course suffice?||In AS13100, certification of Lead Auditors requires both an Aerospace Lead Auditor training course (e.g. AS9100 Lead Auditor course) with documented content and examination as well as AS13100 familiarization which can be satisfied by the AESQ AS13100 Supplemental Quality Management System Requirements course, available at: https://discover.sae.org/AS13100 or equivalent training.|