9102 - FAI Standard Implementation Review Team

1. 9102 - FAI Standard ImplementationReview Team Status April 9, 2003

2. AAQG Donna Ouimet, John Barrett (GEAE) Peter Kern, Ray Wynkowski (Goodrich) Paul Violante/ Anurag Verma (Messier Dowty- Canada) George Buswell (Boeing) Suppliers John Burns (Kaman) Steve Meyer (Eaton) EAQG Tony Holme (Rolls-Royce, plc) Philippe Removille (Snecma) Jose R.Muro (Gamesa, ATECMA-Spain) APAQG Shuji Komori (FHI) Naoki Katagiri (SJAC) Sung-Ju, Lee (KAI) Ran Tuo (AVIC1) IAQG Team Members IAQG Document Representative: Chet Date (Honeywell)

3. Charter • Seek Input from Companies with Significant Experience in Implementing 9102 • What's Working? • What's Not Working? • What are the Show-stoppers/Burning Issues and What are the Work-arounds • Consolidate and Analyze • Identify Key Issues and Provide Recommendations • Any “Easy-Changes" to the Document: Present in the “Ballot-Ready” Draft at Edinburgh

4. Scope • Do Not Violate IAQG’s Original Directive • Maintain the Current Scope of 9102 • No Major Changes • Simplify/Clarify 9102 • Out of Scope: • FAI for 3-D Models- Paperless Drawings (Some Accommodations Have Been Made) • Software FAI • Long-Term FAI: Broad-based Process Control (Similar to APQP/PPAP)

5. Two Schools of ThoughtRegarding The Purpose of FAI • Verification That the Manufacturing Processes Have Made a Part That Meets All Design Requirements OR • Verification That the Manufacturing Processes Have Made a Part That Meets All Design Requirements and Additional Assurance That the Quality System was Complied With to Consistently Make Parts That Meet All Design Requirements

6. Findings • Confusion Due To • Added “Flexibility” and “Options” • Inclusion of Form Description in Main Text • Unclear “English” • Resulting in • Increased Complexity • Several Interpretations of the Standard Through the Supply Chain • Variation in Implementation • “Good to Have” Items Mixed With “Must Have” Requirements • Scope-expansion for FAI (e.g., Adding Process Control, Quality Systems Verification)

7. Revised Document What’s The Same? • Scope of 9102 • “Snap Shot” Verification • Assurance of Drawing Compliance • Applicability • Requirements • Standard Use of Forms • Documentation Requirements • Evaluation Requirements • Event Triggers for Repeat/Partial FAI • Some Flexibility - Optional Fields

8. Revised Document What’s Different? • Improved Layout and Readability of the Standard • Use of “Simplified English” (AECMA Guideline) • Simplified, Color Coded Forms • Eliminated “Points of Confusion” • Clarified “Mandatory Requirements” and Clearly Identified “Optional” Elements • Re-identified “Guidelines” that Were Disguised as Requirements • Forms Broken Away From the Main Document - Allowed Focus Back on Requirements • Eliminated Contradictions Between Forms and Requirements • Provided Open Fields for Company Specific Non-9102 Requirements e.g. Process Assurance

9. 9102 Review Team Proposal • IAQG Council Directs Sectors to Release the 9102 Rev-A Document for “Quick Ballot”

10. Recommendations for Future Activities 1. Charter a Team to Support Implementation of 9102 • Training, Education, Communication, Publicity, “Go-to” People, Electronic Data Collection Tool, etc. 2. Revisit “Process Proving - Quality Planning” • Review If 9103 Can be Expanded to Support Need; Review/Revive IAQG Project SOO/14 • Not Doing So Will Proliferate Several Company Specific 9102 PLUS Requirements 3. Charter a Study-team: FAI Standard for 3-D Model- Paperless Drawings • That’s Where the Future Is… And We Don’t Have Any Common Standard for FAI. • Not Doing So Will Proliferate Several Company Specific Requirements- Some Inadequate, Some Over-kill