QAR: Click Here
Conditions for approval required by: Jonathan Paget
Certification of Aerospace Products to international quality Standards
Certification of Aerospace Products to international quality Standards
Form restricted to registered, logged in users. Please return to the home page and use the Create Account option.
Per requirements of EN9133, renewal requires:
– Details of production in the past 3 years – Internal & VAD – comment of 100000 made is not enough
– Declaration of continued manufacture and conformity
– Declaration of any quality issues in past 3 years
– 9100 has just lapsed
Cannot download QW75-50 – can this be .pdf’d
Test Reports errors?
– GP1 Visual G1-D1-101
o 3 seal dim Page 2 – 1,87 against 1,86 Max
o Dim G Page 6 – 21.25?
o Dim 8.26-8.51 Page 7 – 9.38?
o Dim H 1.24-1.42 Page 7 – 1.42
– G1-D10-408
o Size 10 uncoupling – 0.062 – Min 0.2?
o Size 22 callout incorrect
– G1-D12-202
o Millivolt limit for EN2997SEA1212 parts should be 85 millivolt?
VAD parts have not been included in the full maintenance testing, just reviewed against production acceptance test requirements. Can the mandated body/manufacturer provide explanation on why this is appropriate?
I am confused by the process flow charts provided. These call these ‘new moulding process’ – This causes confusion, has a manufacturing change been made? If so an ACP008 is required.
Hello, Jonathan,
thanks for your efforts for PQ1676.
Find my feedback/commentary on several of your points below. More information has to come from the applicant.
Details of production in the past 3 years – Internal & VAD – comment of 100000 made is not enough:
You are right. The applicant should provide more details – he did this in earlier requalifications, so I do not think it is much of a problem. Since PQ357 is a qualification with a long heritage back to 2015!, I thought it could be O.K. to work with the simple statement of 100.000 items per 3 years (….ongoing business).
Declaration of continued manufacture and conformity – Declaration of any quality issues in past 3 years
O.K. – the applicant to provide these.
9100 has just lapsed
Yes, expired on December 22…… this is another issue. The applicant should be aware of the situation.
Cannot download QW75-50 – can this be .pdf’d
I have this file original as ….doc file and I converted it to ….pdf. Should I send it to you or should we wait for the applicant’s response ?
GP1 Visual G1-D1-101 o 3 seal dim Page 2 – 1,87 against 1,86 max
Yes, one record is 0,01 mm over the limit. Sorry, I should not have overlooked this.
VAD parts have not been included in the full maintenance testing, just reviewed against production acceptance test requirements. Can the mandated body/manufacturer provide explanation on why this is appropriate?
The testing of the VAD parts was as stated in the QTP-Document:
EN2997-001 – Maintenance of qualification Test-VADs
2 mated pieces of Small, Medium and large each shall be assembled by the VADS per Conesys
work instruction (J tech QW75-50) & subjected to EN2997-001 Table 19 –Routine test at Conesys.
Table 19-Routine Test includes:
1-Visual examinations per EN 2591-101
2-Voltage Proof Test per ENN 22591-207
and the results are given in Appendix L. This is exactly the procedure that was used in the preceding requalification.
I am confused by the process flow charts provided. These call these ‘new moulding process’ – This causes confusion, has a manufacturing change been made? If so an ACP008 is required.
I understand the confusion. It is certainly not a good idea to use ‘new moulding process….’ as a file name or part of a file name, because it suggests that the information contained therein is new – even if the file has been created a long time ago. I assumed, that any necessary MCR had been performed (i.e. PQ1592, performed in 2024 was an MCR).
Should further questions come up, please contact me.
Best regards
Bernd Sieberling
Hi Bernd
Thanks for the response. As noted I think to answer my questions can the applicant provide:
– Details of 3 year production
– Up to date AS9100
– Declaration of continued manufacture and conformity
– Any Quality issues occurring and details on how resolved
– As it is not clear, can the applicant confirm no changes have been made to the manufacturing route other than those covered under the PQ1592 since the last renewal?
– Perhaps the guidance on VADs has changed since previous renewal. Could the applicant confirm the actions the VADs undertake? It will decide if anymore testing is appropriate.
– Correct the errors noted in their test report
If you could add a .pdf of QW75-50 that would be great
Thanks,
Jon
Copy of QW75-50 is attached.
No manufacturing changes under the PQ1592 since last renewal.
We have been continuously producing & conforming with EN2997 requirements.
I e-mailed the production & customer returns for 2022, 23 & 24, same format we had done for 2020 .
Is that format not acceptable?
Katrina forwarded the revised report yesterday by drop box?
Did you receive it?
See attached showing processes performed by a VAD.
Testing done at Conesys , for example electrical testing performed 100% at Conesys after insert bonding before it is shipped to Vads
Our test proposal was approved before ewe stared testing.
Previous qualification in 2020 had same type of connectors.
Reason we picked the integral backshell connectors for QUAL is they represent the most complex designs that represent the shell options; qualifying the others by similarity.
Thank you for the updated information as requested.
Please note per the ASD-Cert guidelines for qualification and based on the scope of the VADs operations, I would suggest VAD samples should be included in the full maintenance testing programme at the next renewal not just subject to routine production tests.
Accepted on this occasion on the basis of compliant maintenance testing on Conesys samples and lack of quality issues noted on VAD parts in the last 3 years.