Last Update: 4/8/03 Page FAI Standard Implementation Review Team Status April 9, 2003

Last Update: 4/8/03 Page 2 IAQG Team Members n AAQG l Donna Ouimet, John Barrett (GEAE) l Peter Kern, Ray Wynkowski (Goodrich) l Paul Violante/ Anurag Verma (Messier Dowty- Canada) l George Buswell (Boeing) n Suppliers l John Burns (Kaman) l Steve Meyer (Eaton) n EAQG l Tony Holme (Rolls- Royce, plc) l Philippe Removille (Snecma) l Jose R.Muro (Gamesa, ATECMA-Spain) n APAQG l Shuji Komori (FHI) l Naoki Katagiri (SJAC) l Sung-Ju, Lee (KAI) l Ran Tuo (AVIC1) IAQG Document Representative: Chet Date (Honeywell)

Last Update: 4/8/03 Page 3 Charter n Seek Input from Companies with Significant Experience in Implementing 9102 l What's Working? l What's Not Working? l What are the Show-stoppers/Burning Issues and What are the Work-arounds n Consolidate and Analyze n Identify Key Issues and Provide Recommendations n Any “Easy-Changes" to the Document: Present in the “Ballot-Ready” Draft at Edinburgh

Last Update: 4/8/03 Page 4 Scope n Do Not Violate IAQG’s Original Directive l Maintain the Current Scope of 9102 l No Major Changes n Simplify/Clarify 9102 n Out of Scope: l FAI for 3-D Models- Paperless Drawings (Some Accommodations Have Been Made) l Software FAI l Long-Term FAI: Broad-based Process Control (Similar to APQP/PPAP)

Last Update: 4/8/03 Page 5 Two Schools of Thought Regarding The Purpose of FAI n Verification That the Manufacturing Processes Have Made a Part That Meets All Design Requirements OR n Verification That the Manufacturing Processes Have Made a Part That Meets All Design Requirements and Additional Assurance That the Quality System was Complied With to Consistently Make Parts That Meet All Design Requirements

Last Update: 4/8/03 Page 6 Findings n Confusion Due To l Added “Flexibility” and “Options” l Inclusion of Form Description in Main Text l Unclear “English” n Resulting in l Increased Complexity l Several Interpretations of the Standard Through the Supply Chain l Variation in Implementation l “Good to Have” Items Mixed With “Must Have” Requirements l Scope-expansion for FAI (e.g., Adding Process Control, Quality Systems Verification)

Last Update: 4/8/03 Page 7 Revised Document What’s The Same? l Scope of 9102  “Snap Shot” Verification  Assurance of Drawing Compliance l Applicability l Requirements  Standard Use of Forms  Documentation Requirements  Evaluation Requirements  Event Triggers for Repeat/Partial FAI l Some Flexibility - Optional Fields

Last Update: 4/8/03 Page 8 Revised Document What’s Different? l Improved Layout and Readability of the Standard  Use of “Simplified English” (AECMA Guideline)  Simplified, Color Coded Forms l Eliminated “Points of Confusion”  Clarified “Mandatory Requirements” and Clearly Identified “Optional” Elements  Re-identified “Guidelines” that Were Disguised as Requirements  Forms Broken Away From the Main Document - Allowed Focus Back on Requirements  Eliminated Contradictions Between Forms and Requirements l Provided Open Fields for Company Specific Non Requirements e.g. Process Assurance

Last Update: 4/8/03 Page Review Team Proposal n IAQG Council Directs Sectors to Release the 9102 Rev-A Document for “Quick Ballot”

Last Update: 4/8/03 Page 10 Recommendations for Future Activities 1. Charter a Team to Support Implementation of 9102 l Training, Education, Communication, Publicity, “Go-to” People, Electronic Data Collection Tool, etc. 2. Revisit “Process Proving - Quality Planning” l Review If 9103 Can be Expanded to Support Need; Review/Revive IAQG Project SOO/14 l Not Doing So Will Proliferate Several Company Specific 9102 PLUS Requirements 3. Charter a Study-team: FAI Standard for 3-D Model- Paperless Drawings l That’s Where the Future Is… And We Don’t Have Any Common Standard for FAI. l Not Doing So Will Proliferate Several Company Specific Requirements- Some Inadequate, Some Over-kill