AQL - How do I find Acceptable Quality Level?

It looks like we are getting somewhere.

AS9102 states (regarding FAI) "In the absence of any contractual requirement, compliance is not mandatory. However, the supplier (that's us) must have a process and should utilize AS9102 for guidance." If it works for the 1st Article, why not the rest of the parts? The Scope of this standard states, "The purpose of this standard is provide a consistant documentation requirement for aerospace components."

Click to expand...

The customers tell us what they want. If they do not, we can design our inspection plans as we see fit for the need, cost, and the risk of not inspecting enough. The word should and the clause In the absence of any contractual requirement, compliance is not mandatory give you freedom to do that.

Am I mis-interpreting this? AS9100, 4.2.4-"Records shall be established and maintained to provide evidence of conformity..." 8.2.4 Evidence of conformity with the acceptance criteria shall be maintained."

Click to expand...

If you are inspecting 100% because you choose to, then recording 10% is okay. But if you are required to do an inspection to verify conformance to specifications - at whatever point, and however many - 8.2.4 wants evidence of that conformity. Not evidence that every 10th part conformed. Inspect one piece, record one piece. Inspect 1,000 pieces, record 1,000 pieces. This is evidence of conformance; you are doing 100% inspection for some valid purpose; it stands to reason you will make a record of performing that inspection - and did not send out a flawed part - 100% of the time.

Iin such a case, I would never use "sampling" to describe any of this, because it simply isn't sampling.

I hope I made sense here.

I have found in aerospace that often you are not required to record 100% of hte values from a 100% inspection to document conformity. *I* have used the min/max approach with a column for number of inspected parts, number of accepted parts. *Most* auditors and companies I have dealt with accept this. (Of course, I've had lot sizes in the hundreds, so it was pretty onerous)

You mean like this one I attached?

I only wrote the procedure because the "Training Auditor" said I needed an SPC to justify these actions. Why couldn't she have simply said what you and Jennifer just did?

"If we don't sample, we don't need a plan"...simple enough...I'll go over it again...Thank you

:ca:

Bev D said:

I have found in aerospace that often you are not required to record 100% of hte values from a 100% inspection to document conformity. *I* have used the min/max approach with a column for number of inspected parts, number of accepted parts. *Most* auditors and companies I have dealt with accept this. (Of course, I've had lot sizes in the hundreds, so it was pretty onerous)

Click to expand...

I take the risk of getting it wrong when I talk of aerospace requirements because it's been 10 years since I worked in an aerospace QMS. I take the cautious route when advising to record what's inspected because, well, it's aerospace. If we're not required to do that, it should be clarified in some way I would think. I would hope... I do hope not to lead anyone astray.

When working with steam plant systems on board ship and salt water boundary systems on submarines, we had components that were 100% tested. They were individually marked with the date, location and lot number of the test, not only to "prove" they conformed to requirements, but in event of failure via the investigation the other parts in that lot could be found and dealt with as needed. Of course this turned a valve into a very expensive valve when ot could have been the identical counterpart of a $18.95 valve. But the evidence of conformance brought the value as the quality program demanded it. So it goes with inspection planning. Determine the needs, then meet the needs, and you'd better make sure you can show you do. :ca:

qmslady said:

You mean like this one I attached?

I only wrote the procedure because the "Training Auditor" said I needed an SPC to justify these actions. Why couldn't she have simply said what you and Jennifer just did?

"If we don't sample, we don't need a plan"...simple enough...I'll go over it again...Thank you

Click to expand...

What kind of auditor said exactly what please?

Was this auditor from a certification body, an internal auditor or what? Please share the requirement and description of the problem as it appears in the write up.

O.K.

It didn't take as long as I thought it would...so here goes again...hopefully we are done here...and I can visit under more desireable circumstances

Going home....thanks everyone...Ginger (formerly qmslady)

What kind of auditor said exactly what please?

Was this auditor from a certification body, an internal auditor or what? Please share the requirement and description of the problem as it appears in the write up (Jennifer)




Good Morning Jennifer,

I just read through the threads and don't see the one where, I thought, I explained...

I am the QMS Rep, and the Lead Internal Auditor here, as well as, the Tool Crib Manager among other things.

They hired me to get them ready for certification. I went thru this process at my last company as a Secondary Auditor after going thru the class at Tulsa Tech University. I audited the QMS there and some of the Lead Auditor's work as well.

They had an Auditor/Teacher from TTU come and give classes to prepare the employees for auditing too. She helped to write the procedures and does "pre-auditing" before certification to see what needs to be changed or fixed.

We became friends and she helped me alot with my auditing. We passed the audit and were certified last Nov. 2008 with 9 minors. Five we fixable immediately and they gave us 30 days to fix the other 4. They were all documentation and records errors. She helped us clear these up before the 30 days and then we passed.

She is on the Auditors Board at the college, as well as, a teacher there. I may not have been clear with her as to what I was trying to accomplish. We were discussing the new revision and in process inspection documentation.

I told her how we did it and she said that we needed a "statistically valid" reason for how we did this. When I asked her how we did it at the last company, she only said they "had a written procedure for and AQL of 1.0".

She also said I needed to learn about ANSI Z1.4 and Z1.9 and that for a price she come and teach me and the inspectors, then she went on vaction...:mg: and left me with that.

That is how this whole thing got started. If she had simply said, "If you don't do sampling as a criteria for acceptance then you don't need an SPC." I may not have even written a procedure at all.

But nothing happens by mistake, for me anyway, and I have gained knowledge I would not have otherwise had, since coming to this site. I need to move forward, continual improvement and all that, as the management rep. And, as Auditor, start auditing this company to show them how many things need to change.

Thanx for everything...did you look the last edited procedure over? Anyone?

Ginger

The risk we run into with consultants is that their advice may be more than we truly need - they may be advising something that they think is a good idea, even if it's not really required. This auditing teacher may or may not have done that. The overall impression I am left with is that there was inadequate communication going on.

In the case of a certification audit, the process owner should be able to clearly describe or show the requirements and how they are being met. In the case of an inspectionplan design, such requirements would start with the customer. The customer either dictates the requirements, or accepts how you have described them in your QA manual/process documents...without issue. Boom, that's it.

I am relieved to see all reference to sampling taken out of the process document. The procedure seems fine so long as it meets your customer, business and industry needs. When this consultant said you needed a statistically valid basis for writing down only occasional inspection results, it's fair to ask why she thinks it's necessary. When probing like that it is important to know what you are asking: Is the question about inspection design, or the record keeping requirement?

It might help to just base the question on the standard's clause. You can hold the standard in your hand, and stand your ground with this woman or a registration auditor and ask, "Gee where does it say XYZ is required?"

No doubt this woman would happily explain ANSI Z1.4 and Z1.9 to you for a fee, but although it is a subject you would be wise to understand you don't need her paid services to teach it.

Learning how to push back and drill down for more information can take time, and success will vary depending on the type of people each of the parties are. I look forward to hearing about your adventures as you go forward, and disentangle yourself from the briar patch that can come with consultants and QMS management.

Thanx Jennifer,

I am keeping this thread open for awhile...just in case...and I will look for a thread on auditing techiques and help. I do have a few questions already
moving on...Ginger

You're welcome Ginger.

When you have a question on a specific subject you can search for threads using the function in the toolbar - see "Search" in yellow font.

I am an internal auditor (but not for aerospace) as are plenty of others here, so ask away.