Is the Aerospace industry the same as the Automotive industry?

Golfman25 said:

How many bankrupt/bailed out automotive companies vs. how many bankrupt/bailed out aerospace companies? I think I would tend to follow the more successful of the two.

Click to expand...

I sense industry bias.

First define 'success' and failure.

Also define the scope of automotive and aerospace industries. do you mean only the OEMs (Ford, Toyota, Boeing, Airbus) or do you include suppliers? how far down teh cahin? tier 1, 2 and 3 only? By the way Toyota does it very differently than GM - so do you only mean US automotive companies?

then we must look at the entire length of the industries life spans
we must also calculate the 'failure' rate based on the number of failures per the number of companies.

...but in the end, I don't follow the gospel according to any industry. I take the best parts and use them. I abandon the methods that don't work as well. Tomorrow I will discover even better ways to do things than I used yesterday.

IIRC over here there were some very, very difficult times for British Aerospace (as BAE Systems was called). I think there has been a lot of support from governments for their aerospace sectors over the years. Whether that is through government contracts, export support, subsidies or other support. It would not surprise me that there are aerospace companies making military product that get a lot of behind the scenes support/subsidies. Also, corruption too. I think over in the US a lot was made of alleged bribery over the BAe Systems contracts with middle east. I'm sure a lot of that was sour grapes for losing out and if they had offered a bit more might have got it. Cynical I know.

The French have a history of buying product from and owning shares in their own aerospace industry.

I would say that the aerospace has had support it is just of a different kind to the current bail outs. Also military and to some degree civilian aerospace business is of a totally different nature with a delay in the effects of downturns. I know near me in Barrow Cumbria. They used to have their recessions about 2 years after everyone else due to government contracts getting squeezed further down the line. If that makes sense.

Having seen many automotive folks come over to aerospace I see the thing that they overlook the most is that they have tighter controls on changes by the design and regulatory folks that can frustrate them when they want to improve something in production.

Best example is with sample plans. In aerospace (under the FAA rules) you can not accept a production lot with any rejections where in automotive you could.

With lower quantities of parts and higher costs to qualify many "fix's" and improvements die a quick death.

Re: Aerospace verses Automotive Industry

I am a automotive transplant into the aerospace world. OMG! what a difference! not in a bad way, just a different way. I am trying to adapt and I think I am succeeding. The part volumes are one thing but the tolerances are SHEESH! I do believe the aerospace world is in business for the long haul and on level ground, whereas the automotive world has way too many ups and downs and can collapse at any given time. Just giving my 2 cents.

PaulJSmith said:

Re: Aerospace verses Automotive Industry

Having worked in both, it's my impression that there are indeed many similarities between the two. One of the biggest differences, though, is the level of tolerances. While many of the physical skills required are the same, there is a monumental difference between building, say, a fender for an SUV and building a horizontal stabilator for a fighter jet.

From a Quality viewpoint, it's really not too much different. There's a slightly different standard, modified for that industry from the automotive standard, but the procedures and techniques are nearly identical.

Honestly, I enjoyed my time in aerospace much more than my time in automotive. Not exactly sure why, but I suspect it was the challenge of ensuring that those things were as exactly right as possible. It's a pretty important task, for a lot of reasons.

Click to expand...

can you tell me the alignments and contradictions in quality engineering and management btwn Auto and aerospace industry? thank you

I have worked in Aerospace for the better part of over 40 years and only have had a couple of years in Automotive. It is not at all uncommon in Aerospace to have process CPK's less than 1, essentially hand crafted components where 100 pieces represent 100 one piece samples opposed to one 100 pc sample. Automotive gets involved in your process and demands robust CPKs because if a lot of parts is unsuitable for use the entire line shuts down with very limited if any choices for contingency plans. You can't be late and it must be acceptable. In Aerospace there are often opportunities for work around measures. Aerospace doesn't have the smooth demand planning of Automotive. In one example I had roughly 26 week lead times and only 75% of the backlog I was measured against at month end was booked on the 1st of the month. Of course my answer was to transition to a build to forecast model.

In another Aerospace example the component demand input was so far out of touch with the customer build schedule I had to abandon working for on-time delivery in order to eliminate out of station builds to keep the airframes flowing at my customer.

Big Jim said:

Re: Aerospace verses Automotive Industry

Both AS9100 (Aerospace Standard) and ISO/TS 16949 (Automotive Standard) are based on ISO 9001. The entirety of ISO 9001 in included in both. In each case, clauses have been added to make them pertinent for their industry segment.

Of the two standards, the Automotive one seems to actually be the stricter one, the the Automotive segment seems to be very proud of it.

You should realize that the mission of each standard is quite different due to the difference in the nature of the industry they serve. Aerospace is concerned mainly with making flight worthy parts with the controls needed to accomplish that mission. Automotive is concerned with extremely high levels of consistency with high volumes (volumes that Aerospace will never see) with extreme cost cutting pressures.

One of the main tools for achieving the high level of quality for Aerospace is the First Article Inspection.

One of the main tools for achieving the high level of consistency (another word for quality) in Automotive is the PPAP.

PPAP really only works well with high volume, but those who have extensively used it seem to believe that it works for everything.
.............

Click to expand...

I know is an old thread, but can someone put more light into why in the aerospace industry the FAI (First Article Inspection) is preferred rather than the PPAP (Production Part Approval Process)? If I understood properly, not both are used, or I am I wrong? Thank you.

UPDATE:

I found a good and straightforward article explaining the differences. I post it here in case someone has similar question.

Differences Between FAI and PPAP – First Article Inspection vs PPAP​

First Article Inspection (FAI) and Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) are two quality control processes used in manufacturing. While both processes serve a similar purpose, there are some key differences between FAI and PPAP.

• Timing: FAI is performed before the start of production, while PPAP is performed during production. FAI is typically done on the initial production run of a new part or product, while PPAP is done on a regular basis during production runs to ensure that the process remains stable.
• Purpose: The purpose of FAI is to verify that a new part or product meets all of the design and specification requirements before production begins. The purpose of PPAP is to ensure that the production process is capable of consistently producing parts or products that meet all of the design and specification requirements.
• Scope: FAI typically involves a comprehensive review of the design, manufacturing process, and related documentation, while PPAP is typically limited to the review of specific production processes, parts, or components.
• Documentation: The documentation required for FAI and PPAP is different. FAI typically involves the completion of an FAI form, while PPAP requires the completion of a PPAP submission that includes more detailed documentation on the production process and quality control methods.
• Applications: FAI is commonly used in the aerospace and defense industries, while PPAP is more commonly used in the automotive industry.

Source (Types of First Article Inspection - Differences Between FAI and PPAP)

toniriazor said:

why in the aerospace industry the FAI (First Article Inspection) is preferred rather than the PPAP (Production Part Approval Process)?

Click to expand...

I am not an industry spokesman, but I have worked in both industries. I think FAI came first, and PPAP was an evolution from first-piece-inspection once the U.S. Big Three realized statistical control in production was needed to compete with the quality of Japanese Automakers in the 1970's and 1980's. In Aerospace and Defense, production volumes might be in the neighborhood of 20/year. In Automotive, production volumes might be 20 per hour or 20 per minute. So the stereotype is a different scale of production. Automotive may use more assembly line production, with a high incentive for mass-produced parts which fit together interchangeably. Aerospace might have lower production rates, so they have different needs.

The Aerospace industry is in fact moving in the direction of more comprehensive and rigorous Advanced Product Quality Planning, with their version of APQP/PPAP initiatives.

From the top - No, one makes cars and the other aircraft.

There are parallels, but 2 different industries, 2 different mindsets.