Search Results

This SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) specifies for quality requirements that are additive to a procurement document or contract, where an organization: a needs to provide additional guidance for suppliers and other organizations in the delivery of products, goods and services in accordance with stated quality demands, and b needs to provide information in addition or in absence of existing quality system requirements to provide the assurance of conformity to customer and applicable regulatory requirements. NOTE: In this ARP, the term ‘product’ applies only to the product intended for, or required by, a customer.

This SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) specifies for quality requirements that are additive to a procurement document or contract, where an organization: a needs to provide additional guidance for suppliers and other organizations in the delivery of products, goods and services in accordance with stated quality demands, and b needs to provide information in addition or in absence of existing quality system requirements to provide the assurance of conformity to customer and applicable regulatory requirements. NOTE: In this ARP, the term ‘product’ applies only to the product intended for, or required by, a customer.

This SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) establishes documentation requirements for the First Article Inspection (FAI).

This SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) establishes requirements for performing and documenting the First Article Inspection (FAI).

This standard establishes the baseline requirements for performing and documenting FAI. Should there be a conflict between the requirements of this standard and applicable statutory or regulatory requirements, the applicable statutory or regulatory requirements shall take precedence.

This SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) establishes documentation requirements for the First Article Inspection (FAI).

Operator Self-Verification can apply to a variety of processes. The primary focus is on traditional manufacturing operations, but applications can be made wherever traditional inspection methods are employed. The practices recommended in this document are intended to identify the basic elements for structuring Operator Self-Verification programs within the aerospace industry; applicable to producers of commercial and military aircraft and weapons platforms, space vehicles, and all related hardware, software, electronics, engines and composite components. Operator Self-Verification programs are applied to improve overall efficiency and product quality to processes considered mature, as judged by the organization. Operator Self-Verification programs are not stand-alone processes, but augment existing quality management system standard requirements.

The focus of Operator Self-Verification is on traditional manufacturing operations, and applications can be made wherever traditional inspection is employed. The practices recommended in this document are intended to identify the basic elements and provide a “guideline” for structuring Operator Self-Verification programs within the aerospace industry; applicable to producers of commercial and military aircraft and weapons platforms, space vehicles, and all related hardware, software, electronics, engines and composite components. Operator Self-Verification programs are applied to improve the overall efficiency and product quality of processes considered mature, as judged by the implementing organization. Operator Self-Verification programs are not stand-alone processes, but augment existing quality management systems.

This document identifies the basic elements and provides a standard for structuring operator self-verification programs within the aviation, space, and defense industry for producers of commercial and military aircraft and weapons platforms, space vehicles, and all related hardware, software, electronics, engines, and composite components. The requirements specified in this standard are complementary (not alternative) to contractual and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Should there be a conflict between the requirements of this standard and applicable statutory or regulatory requirements, the latter shall take precedence.

This standard defines the common nonconformance data definition and documentation that shall be exchanged between an internal/external supplier or sub-tier supplier, and the customer when informing about a nonconformity requiring formal decision. The requirements are applicable, partly or totally, when reporting a product nonconformity to the owner or operator, as user of the end item (e.g., engine, aircraft, spacecraft, helicopter), if specified by contract. The process of exchanging, coordinating, and approving nonconformance data varies with the multiple relationships and agreements among all parties concerned. The information provided by this standard forms guidelines for submitting and managing of data through accurate communication. The main objective is to provide the definition of a data set that can be integrated into any form of communication (e.g., electronic data interchange, submission of conventional paper forms).

This standard defines the common nonconformity data definition and documentation that shall be exchanged between an internal/external supplier or sub-tier supplier, and the customer when informing about a nonconformity requiring formal decision. The requirements are applicable, partly or totally, when reporting a product nonconformity to the owner or operator, as user of the end item (e.g., engine, aircraft, spacecraft, helicopter), if specified by contract. Reporting of nonconformity data, either electronically or conventionally on paper, is subject to the terms and conditions of the contract. This also includes, where applicable, data access under export control regulations.

This standard is primarily intended to apply to new parts and products intended to be produced in an on-going production phase, but can also be applied to parts currently in production (e.g., manufacturing, maintenance). The standard is applicable to all production processes that influence the variation of KCs, as well as maintenance and service processes in which KCs are identified. It applies to organizations for assemblies and all levels of parts within an assembly, down to the basic materials including castings and forgings, and to organizations that are responsible for producing the design characteristics of the product. The variation control process begins with product definition, typically stated in the design documentation (e.g., digital model, engineering drawing, specification) which identifies KCs, and leads to a variation management process for those KCs. This process may also be used for producer-identified KCs (e.g., process KCs, additional/substitute product KCs).

This standard establishes requirements for performing and documenting APQP and PPAP. APQP begins with conceptual product needs and extends through product definition, production planning, product and process validation (i.e., PPAP), product use, and post-delivery service. This standard integrates and collaborates with the requirements of the 9100, 9102, 9103, and 9110 standards. The requirements specified in this standard are complementary (not alternative) to contractual and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Should there be a conflict between the requirements of this standard and applicable statutory or regulatory requirements, the latter shall take precedence.

This document is intended to prescribe consistent requirements for CSI management for organizations and suppliers who perform work for prime contractors receiving direct contracts from U.S. government agencies (i.e., first-tier or prime suppliers).

This Standard defines uniform Quality and Technical requirements relative to metallic parts marking performed in using "Data Matrix symbology" (2D) coding used within the aerospace industry. The ISO 16022 specifies general requirements (data characters encodation, error correction rules, decoding algorithm, etc.). In addition to this specification, part Identification with such coding is subject to the following requirements to ensure electronic reading (scanning) ability of the symbol. The marking processes covered by this standard are as follows: Dot Peening Laser Marking Electro-Chem Etching Further marking processes will be included if required. Unless specified otherwise in the contractual business relationship, the company responsible for the design of the part shall determine the location of the Data Matrix Marking. Symbol position should allow illumination from all sides for readability.

This standard defines uniform quality and technical requirements relative to metallic parts marking performed using "data matrix symbology" within the aviation, space, and defense industry. ISO/IEC 16022 specifies general requirements (e.g., data character encodation, error correction rules, decoding algorithm). In addition to ISO/IEC 16022 specification, part identification with such symbology is subject to the requirements in this standard to ensure electronic reading of the symbol. The marking processes covered by this standard are as follows: Dot Peening Laser Electro-Chemical Etching Further marking processes will be included, if required. Unless specified otherwise in the contractual business relationship, the company responsible for the design of the part shall determine the location of the data matrix marking. Symbol position should allow optimum illumination from all sides for readability. This standard does not specify information to be encoded.

This SAE Aerospace Standard (AS) defines uniform Quality and Technical requirements relative to metallic parts marking performed in using "Data Matrix symbology" used within the aerospace industry. The ISO/IEC 16022 specifies general requirements (data character encodation, error correction rules, decoding algorithm, etc.). In addition to ISO/IEC 16022 specification, part identification with such symbology is subject to the following requirements to ensure electronic reading of the symbol. The marking processes covered by this standard are as follows: Dot Peening Laser Electro-Chemical Etching Further marking processes will be included if required. This standard does not specify information to be encoded. Unless specified otherwise in the contractual business relationship, the company responsible for the design of the part shall determine the location of the Data Matrix Marking. Symbol position should allow optimum illumination from all sides for readability.

The basic requirements of AS9100A apply with the following clarifications. This document supplements the requirements of AS9100A for deliverable software. This supplement contains Quality System requirements for suppliers of products that contain deliverable embedded or loadable airborne, spaceborne or ground support software components that are part of an aircraft Type Design, weapon system, missile or spacecraft operational software and/or support software that is used in the development and maintenance of deliverable software. This includes the host operating system software including assemblers, compilers, linkers, loaders, editors, code generators, analyzers, ground simulators and trainers, flight test data reduction, etc., that directly support creation, test and maintenance of the deliverable software.

Limited to the Commercial Aerospace industry where a request is made for a Production Organization (PO) to have Direct Delivery Authorization (DDA), which includes an Appropriate Arrangement (AA) between the PO and the Design Organization (DO). In this process the DO is responsible for ensuring the continuous updating of design and airworthiness data to the PO, whilst the PO is responsible for assurance that the manufactured article conforms to Approved Design and Airworthiness Data. The PO is responsible to provide airworthiness release documentation.

Limited to the commercial aerospace industry where a request is made for a PO to have Direct Delivery Authorization (DDA), which includes an Appropriate Arrangement (AA) between the PO and the Design Organization (DO). In this process the DO is responsible for ensuring the continuous updating of design and airworthiness data to the PO, whilst the PO is responsible for assurance that the manufactured article conforms to approved design and airworthiness data. The PO is responsible to provide airworthiness release documentation.