1、 AEROSPACE RECOMMENDED PRACTICE Aerospace Operator Self-Verification Programs SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: “This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this report is entirely voluntary, and its applicability and suitabi
2、lity for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising therefrom, is the sole responsibility of the user.” SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be reaffirmed, revised, or cancelled. SAE invites your written comments and suggestions. Copyrig
3、ht 2005 SAE International All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. TO PLACE A DOCUMENT ORDE
4、R: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA) Fax: 724-776-0790 Email: custsvcsae.org SAE WEB ADDRESS: http:/www.sae.org Issued 2005-05 ARP9162 FOREWORD To continue to assure customer satisfaction, aerospace industry organizations must produce and continually improve s
5、afe, reliable products that meet or exceed customer and regulatory requirements. The globalization of the aerospace industry and the resulting diversity of requirements and expectations have complicated this objective. This document is focused on standardizing, to the extent possible, Operator Self-
6、Verification practices in the aerospace industry. Establishing common aerospace practices should result in improved quality and safety, decreased costs, and elimination or reduction of organization-unique requirements. Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleN
7、o reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE ARP9162 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SCOPE 3 1.1 Purpose3 2. REFERENCES.3 2.1 SAE Publication .3 2.2 JSA Publication3 2.3 ISO Publication 3 2.4 AECMA-STAN Publication .4 2.5 EASA Publications .4 3. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 4 4. GENER
8、AL6 5. BASIC REQUIRED ELEMENTS 6 6. APPLICATION .7 6.1 Identification of Processes Eligible for Using Operator Self-Verification7 6.2 Development of Plans for Operator Self-Verification Implementation, Maintenance and Continuous Improvement 8 6.3 Training and Competence of Identified Operators .9 6.
9、4 Development of Metrics for Oversight of Operator and Process Performance 10 6.5 Structured Maintenance of Processes .11 Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE ARP9162 - 3 - 1. SCOPE: T
10、he 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-
11、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 ov
12、erall 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. The identified program elements are for voluntary implementation by the
13、 organization, and are not intended for contractual flow-down unless otherwise stipulated through contractual agreement. 1.1 Purpose: To provide the recommended elements for Operator Self-Verification processes within the aerospace industry. 2. REFERENCES: The following publications form a part of t
14、his document to the extent specified herein. The latest issue of SAE publications shall apply. The applicable issue of other publications shall be the issue in effect on the date of the purchase order. Nothing in this document supersedes applicable laws and regulations unless a specific exemption ha
15、s been obtained. 2.1 SAE Publication: Available from SAE, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. AS9100 Quality Systems - Aerospace - Model for Quality Assurance in Design, Development, Production, Installation and Servicing 2.2 JSA Publication: Available through JSA website http:/www.js
16、a.or.jp/default_english.asp SJAC9100 Quality Systems - Aerospace - Model for Quality Assurance in Design, Development, Production, Installation and Servicing 2.3 ISO Publication: Available through ISO website http:/www.iso.org ISO 9000:2000 Quality management systems Fundamentals and vocabulary Copy
17、right SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE ARP9162 - 4 - 2.4 AECMA-STAN Publication: Available through AECMA-STAN website http:/www.aecma-stan.org EN 9100 Aerospace series - Quality Management S
18、ystems - Requirements (based on ISO 9001:2000) and Quality Systems - Model for Quality Assurance in Design, Development, Production, Installation and Servicing (based on ISO 9001:1994) 2.5 EASA Publications: Available through EASA website http:/www.easa.eu.int a. Commission Regulation No. 2042/2003,
19、 Annex II (Part 145) Section A b. Executive Director Decision 2003/19/RM, Annex II AMC to Part 145 3. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS: ACCEPTANCE: The establishment of a record that signifies verification that the product is compliant with all the specified requirements. In Self Verification programs the orga
20、nization should clearly specify the detail and extent of the approved operators or team members acceptance authority. CRITICAL PROCESSES: Those processes that if not performed properly or if improper parts or material are used could result in a failure, malfunction or defect endangering the safe ope
21、ration of the product involved. ESCAPED DEFECT: A defect discovered by someone other than the operator; provided the operator was given the training, instructions, and tools necessary to perform the verification task. INDEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE: The entity performing the close observation/review or au
22、dit of Operator Self-Verification should not be dependent on or affiliated with the entity controlling the Operator. MULTI TASKING: The use of more than one source to perform independent performance evaluations of an Operator Self-Verification process. OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE: Unbiased, factual data supp
23、orting the existence or verity of something. Objective evidence may be obtained through observation, measurement, test, or other means. Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE ARP9162 - 5
24、 - 3. (Continued): OPERATOR: The term used to identify the individuals or teams who physically perform the process. Self Verification qualified individuals or teams should be referred to through terminology considered suitable by the organizations program focus, cultural and customer environment. (i
25、.e. “Approved Operators”, “Approved Technicians”, “Certified/Approved Process Team Members” etc.) OPERATOR COMPETENCY: A means of objectively determining that identified operators or team members, have the necessary skills and knowledge to undertake the role of self-verification. OPERATOR SELF-VERIF
26、ICATION: Placement of the formal verification of applicable requirements in the hands of the qualified and competent operator. ORGANIZATION: As used in this text, the term refers to the implementing “organization” as defined in ISO 9000:2000. PERIODIC OPERATOR REVIEW: Points, at periods of time esta
27、blished by the organization, at which an operator is to be assessed to determine whether re-training or initial training is required. QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: A set of interrelated elements established with policies and objectives to direct and control an organization with regards to quality. RAND
28、OM SURVEILLANCE: A point selected for an unannounced, independent close observation/review to assess the individual Operator Self-Verification Process. REGULAR METRIC DATA REVIEW: An established point at which an operator and/or process is to be assessed via control metrics to determine quality of p
29、erformance, where Operator Self-Verification is in place. SHOULD: Indicates a recommended action, content or path, but not mandatory application. STABLE AND UNDER CONTROL PROCESS: A process which has operated within the established control metric criteria for an acceptable period of time, as establi
30、shed by the organization, and all assignable nonconformity causes have been eliminated via corrective action. SURVEILLANCE: The act of close observation or review of an activity, operation or process. VERIFICATION: Confirmation through the provision of objective evidence that specified requirements
31、have been fulfilled. Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE ARP9162 - 6 - 3. (Continued): TRADITIONAL INSPECTION: The inspection of products or processes by individuals whose sole functi
32、on is the inspection of parts, assemblies or processes. 4. GENERAL: Operator Self-Verification places formal verification of applicable requirements in the hands of the qualified and competent operator, and augments existing, robust quality management systems to provide continued system and product
33、quality improvement. Development and implementation of an effective Operator Self-Verification program affects the overall awareness and operating culture of the organization, and promotes reduction in traditional inspections. Integration of Operator Self-Verification into the work process, establis
34、hes process and operator performance metrics, and through regular surveillance reviews, allows the operators to control and improve the quality of the products. Operator Self-Verification programs can be implemented on a selective or organizational wide basis and can reduce the cost of quality, impr
35、ove defect prevention and detection, improve efficiency and productivity, eliminate waste, and require operator accountability. Operator Self-Verification enriches employees through promoting active involvement in the manufacture and improvement of products. It also promotes streamlining of product
36、and process flows by eliminating the need to move the product to a traditional inspector, or an inspector to the product, enhances the potential for product improvement through in depth review by various disciplines, and thus potentially provides improved quality and greater customer satisfaction. O
37、perator Self-Verification programs should highlight the responsibility/accountability for product quality, promote employee pride of ownership, recognize superior performance, and provide operators with enhanced ability to control process performance. 5. BASIC REQUIRED ELEMENTS: In addition to an ex
38、isting quality management system, the following items are deemed essential in implementing and maintaining an Operator Self Verification program: Documention of Operator Self-Verification candidate processes Development of plans for Operator Self-Verification program implementation Documented traini
39、ng and competency of Self-Verification operators Evaluation of human performance limitations Development of metrics for oversight of process and operator performance Documented implementation and maintenance plans for Self-Verification processes Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under lice
40、nse with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SAE ARP9162 - 7 - 6. APPLICATION: The basic elements of Operator Self-Verification are essential in establishing a robust program in compliance with this practice. However, the details of these elements ar
41、e left to the discretion of the implementing organization based on evaluation of their needs. Effective and continued communication with the customer and/or regulatory authority representatives, as well as with company personnel that will be affected by the program, is essential and vital in deployi
42、ng self-verification programs. Effective, two-way communication builds the necessary broad base of employee understanding, participation, involvement and commitment; promotes customer acceptance and satisfaction with the program and its results; and avoids unnecessary remedial activities, change cos
43、ts and delays in implementing the program. Effective program implementation also requires the development of a broad based plan with provisions to inform all personnel involved of the programs objectives and intent, formalize actions required, ensure management commitment, and establish the timetabl
44、e for goal completion. In addition to the plan, the organization should establish and formally document the process for operator self verification program implementation and operation. The documentation should provide program philosophy and operational perspective to company and customer personnel.
45、Subordinate documentation can be developed and deployed, as deemed necessary, to provide specific or detailed direction and instructions for the work force, management, administrative personnel, program/process records and record retention, etc. 6.1 Identification of Processes Eligible for Using Ope
46、rator Self-Verification: When identifying potential processes for Operator Self-Verification, either selectively or on an organizational wide basis, the implementing organization should consider and select processes based on: acceptable levels of perceived risk associated with the candidate process
47、and the reduction or elimination of traditional inspection (formal or informal processes for risk analysis may be used); demonstrated stability and maturity of the process through such methods as first article performance results and process generated non-conformities within the established process
48、performance review period/cycle time. Operator Self-Verification should not include those processes considered by the organization, customer, or regulatory authorities as “critical processes” (those that mandate traditional inspection for review and acceptance), unless adequate mitigation of risk is
49、 agreed to and in place, and proper delegation has been specified. The selection process is most effective when performed by multi-disciplined groups. The combined efforts of the various disciplines such as Manufacturing, Quality Assurance, Manufacturing Engineering, Engineering and others offers a more diverse overview of candidate processes. Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo
