AT- FAA / NASA WORKSHOP ON KEY CHARACTERISTICS FOR COMPOSITE MATERIAL CONTROL Cirrus Design Industry Review August 6 th, /02

FAA / NASA WorkshopAugust 6 th, OLD vs. NEW APPROACH Develop Material Qualify Material Produce / Use Material Develop Material Qualify Material Produce / Use Material Monitor Material, SPC Periodic Property Testing Evaluate Material Changes Characterize Material Property Database, Specifications [Finite Project with a beginning and end] [Continuous Project – live documents]

FAA / NASA WorkshopAugust 6 th, PAST EXPERIENCE – 2 STAGES MATERIAL QUALIFICATION  Overall positive experiences.  Good support from co-workers, suppliers and FAA. Positive and optimistic attitudes.  High level of confidence in material quality. PRODUCTION AND QUALITY CONTROL  Learned some lessons the hard way.  Transitioned from small to large-scale prepreg production process.  Introduced new players, test labs not involved in qualification.  Qualification batches not totally representative of production material.  Material and part fabrication challenges caused by lack of material and process control.  Frustrations from suppliers due to inconsistent end requirements.  Frustrations with suppliers due to lack of material and process control.

FAA / NASA WorkshopAugust 6 th, CIRRUS POINT OF VIEW  Positive outlook on new approach: Flexible and open to changes. Low reliance on precedence. “Common-sense” philosophy.  Agree with basic goals of workshop: Standardize procurement, testing, & increase process control. Give separate materials separate batch requirements. Provide additional material monitoring and control throughout process – closed loop process. Shared technical information on critical material control issues.

FAA / NASA WorkshopAugust 6 th, CIRRUS CONCERNS “Cost of manufacturing a composite structure often exceeds that of an equivalent aluminum structure.”  New Approach Requires:  Additional time and expertise from all levels (suppliers, end- users, FAA). Upkeep of material database is time-consuming.  Increased resources  drive up material costs.  End-user: QA/SPC need to understand structural implications of failures on a property-specific level.  Supplier: Proprietary issues required in the Process Control Doc.  Initial goal of general material database was to reduce redundant testing and bring down qualification costs. However, by increasing material control level, qualification and support costs will result.  BALANCE