AESQ Supplier Forum - AS13100 Overview (General Questions)
Question |
Answer |
|---|---|
| Can you clarify whether the requirements of AS13100 will be retroactive to existing parts/product or whether the requirements stated will be for new parts/product at the time of implementation? | This question typically aligns to the topic of APQP and PPAP; recognizing this, AESQ has agreed that the standard in this aspect is not retroactive for existing parts and products. Since the bulk of the AS13100 standard applies to the Quality Management System (QMS) and is not directly related to parts, it is expected those elements of the standard are implemented prior to the required 1/1/2023 date. |
| Do we intend to have all new PO compliant and flowing by December 31, 2022, or do we intend that product being received will all be compliant by the December 31st date? | AESQ Member companies all agreed that they will be flowing AS13100 well before the compliance date of Dec 31, 2022. They also expect product to be received at that date that is compliant to AS13100. Over the next year and a half the suppliers will have time to build compliance. They should be using this time to train their people, conduct the gap analysis and then work towards full compliance. There will be exceptions at the Dec 31, 2022 date but those should be documented with a plan to close. |
| 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, supplimental materials |
| Will OEM Supplier Requirement Standards be replaced by AS13100 any time in the future? |
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. |
| All for this initiative but Program Management and Site Leadership are only going to see significant increase 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 to 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. |
| For INDUSTRY STANDARD RAW MATERIAL MANUFACTURER - ISO9001 is required. Are the Reference 9100D:09/2016 requirements also applicable. | No. |
| 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. |
| What is difference between AS9100 and AS13100? | AS13100 includes requirements that are supplemental to those in AS9100. These supplemental requirements are based on requirements flowed down to the engine makers from the regulator, customer and industry that are not included in AS9100. |
| Why is it not considered to integrate AS13100 with AS9100? | It would be too difficult because AS9100 needs to satisfy all aerospace suppliers, and AS13100 is focused on aero engine supply chains that are subject to more stringent regulatory and customer requirements. |