IPCA+ Master Quest FullScope Airbus CONVERT v1.1

IPCA + Full Scope Questionnaire Airbus Questionnaire only for Airbus Group Lead Assessors and Assessors Do not communicate this Questionnaire to the Supplier Purpose of the questionnaire  To provide a guideline with the questions to be addressed during the IPCA+ Assessment. To provide a consolidated view of each assessed brick so that assessors can determine its ranking. Applicability of questions Only questions mentioned in this questionnaire shall be used. Questions are applicable to all product types : aerostructure, material, equipment & systems, etc. Nevertheless, some questions are specific to a product domain and are not relevant in all the cases. Link to requirements:  The objective of IPCA+ is not to audit the compliance of the Supplier to requirements. Thus, the international Standards and Airbus Group requirements ID in this questionnaire are given exclusively for information (e.g. EN 9100:2009, ASR, ER,...) Applicability of bricks: The bricks application is defined in the corresponding IPCA+ Applicability Bricks Matrix of each Airbus Group Division. Information on ranking:  Each brick of the questionnaire is ranked A+, A, B, C or D. The detailed description of each ranking is based on the general rules and is mentioned in each brick. For some bricks, their ranking have been adapted in order to comply with IPCA+ scope. Ranking Description of Ranking Finding rules Weight A+ A B C D

Written procedure and process are benchmark level and proven effective on the Product. Airbus expectations are exceeded. Written procedure and process are robust, formalised, implemented and proven effective on the Product and Airbus expectations fully met. Written procedure and process are in place but are not robust leading to Minor Risks on the Product.

Strong Point, justifying benchmark level No Finding, Observation possible At least 1 minor Finding, but no Major Finding Written procedure or process are not applied leading to Major Risks on the Product. No written procedure but process At least 1 Major Finding in place. No process are in place and no evidence of written procedure leading to Major Risks on the product (even on At least 1 Major Finding similar product and manufacturing process).

Table of Contents

1.1 - Industrial Process Flow Chart Manufacturing

2. Materials 4. Management Specific 3. Industrial 1. Industrial Tooling Resource Documentation Definitio Management n

1.2 - Industrial Process Flow Chart Supply Chain 1.3 - Manufacturing Plan 1.4 - Manufacturing and Inspection Dossier 1.5 - Production Documentation Management 2.1 - Manufacturing and Distribution rules 2.2 - Production Management System and Procurement triggering Mode 2.3 - Capacity management 3.1 - Industrial Human Resource Management 3.2 - Facility Management: Premises & Means 3.3 - Qualification / Maintenance of Means & Tools and Calibration of Measurement Equipment 4.1 - Specific Tooling Development 4.2 - Specific Tooling Management 5.1 - Industrial Risk Analysis 5.2 - Key Characteristics and Process Capability Management 5.3 - Concurrent Engineering 5.4 - Test / Inspection strategy and Control Plan

7. Process Monitoring

6. Purchasing 5. Proactive Control Approach

5.5 - Environmental Stress Screening 5.6 - Obsolescence Management 5.7 - Industrial Continuous Improvement 6.1 - Procurement / Suppliers (Subcontractors) Risk Analysis 6.2 - Selection of Suppliers and Cascade of Requirements 6.3 - Supplier Monitoring 7.1 - Non-conformity Management 7.2 - Delays Management 7.3 - Quality & Supply Chain Metrics 8.1 - Preservation of Product 8.2 - Series Production Readiness

8. Manufacturing

8.3 - Traceability 8.4 - Industrial Change Management 8.5 - Product Config. & Change Management 8.6 - Production of Elementary Parts 8.7 - Production of Assemblies

3.5 3 2 0 -1

1.1 Industrial Process Flow Chart Manufacturing Overall objective of the brick is to verify that the Supplier has a:

1. Clear understanding of the industrial process related to the Product and maps the sequence of internal and external phases for product manufacturing, assembly and inspection processes. Does the Supplier have a complete flow chart "manufacturing" (or equivalent documentation)? - Specific to the product - Main manufacturing, inspection and test phases - Internal & external activities - Processes requiring specific skills / competencies (e.g. Special process, certified/authorized operators, etc) - Name of Quality metrics (e.g. Rejection Rate, % of scrap, % of rework, etc) and their position within the manufacturing process - Key characteristics and their position within the manufacturing process - Means & tools used - Associated documentation (drawing, procedure, etc)

1 Does the flow chart (or equivalent documentation) reflect the current manufacturing process? - Consistent with routing sheet Is the flow chart (or equivalent documentation) subject to revision control? - Date - Issue

Rank

Ranking guidelines

A+

Flowchart is benchmark level and regularly updated.

A

Flowchart or equivalent documentation includes the relevant information and is detailed enough to provide the basis for robust Manufacturing process control.

B

Flowchart or equivalent documentation exists, but is not detailed enough (or minor inconsistencies) to provide the basis for robust Manufacturing process control.

C D

Flowchart or equivalent documentation exists, but relevant information is missing. Flowchart or equivalent documentation does not represent the current Manufacturing process leading to major inconsistencies and lack of manufacturing process control. No flowchart or equivalent documentation available (even on similar product) and difficulties to explain the process.

Comments:

1.2 Industrial Process Flow Chart Supply Chain Overall objective of the brick is to verify that the Supplier has a:

1. Mapping of the physical and information flow for his complete Supply Chain (information system, provisioning plan). Does the Supplier have a complete flow chart "supply chain" (or equivalent documentation)? - Specific to the product - From end to end - Physical Flow - Information Flow (e.g. forecast, ordering, needs management, etc) - Activities linked to Key contributing parties (Suppliers, subcontracted Processes, etc) - Bottleneck identification - Customer Demand (quantity per week or month and lot size) - Inventory between process steps - For main process steps: § Production rate § On Time Delivery § Lot size § Lead time/Cycle time (internal & external) § Number of resources § Available time, utilisation, efficiency?

1 Does the flow chart (or equivalent documentation) reflect the current supply chain process? Is the flow chart (or equivalent documentation) subject to revision control? - Date - Issue

Rank

Ranking guidelines

A+ A

Flowchart is benchmark level (e.g. full VSM with regular updates). Flowchart or equivalent documentation includes the relevant information and is detailed enough to provide the basis for robust Supply Chain control.

B

Flow chart or equivalent documentation exists, but is not detailed enough (or minor inconsistencies) to provide the basis for robust Supply Chain control.

C D

Comments:

Flow chart or equivalent documentation exists, but relevant information is missing Flow chart or equivalent documentation does not represent the current supply chain process leading to major inconsistencies and lack of supply chain control. No flowchart or equivalent documentation available (even on similar product) and difficulties to explain the process.

1.3 Manufacturing Plan The objective of this brick is to verify the capability of Supplier to develop following parts of Manufacturing Plan:

1. Build concept 2. Technology demonstration / Feasibility Plan Does the Supplier have a build concept with appropriate level of details for the product? - With key characteristics requirements specified by the Customer - Updated according to feasibility test results and design changes during development - Manufacturing/Assembly process selected is optimised - Consideration of all interfaces with this WP - For Electrics, if required during development phase, a process to ensure harnesses connection and length are managed (e.g. based on potential over length during this phase)

1 Does the supplier have a defined and clear multi-functional review process including revision control for this plan? Does the supplier have a consistent datum strategy? - Identification of interface datum's and consistency with the strategy - Clear flow of datum's points from elementary part manufacture to full assembly datum (look for cohesive datuming strategies for the major components / sections) - All transfer of datum's are displayed / indicated and have been taken into account Does the Supplier have a feasibility plan with appropriate level of details for the product? - Key feasibility trials / process confirmation / capability demonstration in the plan to ensure compliance with this Work Package requirements - Route to manufacturing maturity with clear internal maturity milestones to achieve at each industrialisation phase - Maturity control (KPIs, internal gates and review with the Customer) in accordance with definition dossier

2 Does the Supplier have a process and tool to communicate this plan internally and to the Customer? Does the Supplier have a process to validate its sub-tiers manufacturing plan?

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope and Basics in Selection and Series

A+

Manufacturing plan is at benchmark level (e.g. all changes are continuously analysed and reflected in both build concept and technology demonstration / feasibility plan). Clarity and contents are exceeding Airbus expectations.

A

Clear and complete manufacturing plan, fully meeting Airbus expectations. Build concept associated is consistent with the definition dossier / manufacturing specification. All process steps are demonstrated.

B

Clear and complete manufacturing plan, key process steps are identified. Some minor inconsistencies have been observed (eg. minor process step not consistent or not demonstrated)

C

Manufacturing plan exists, but major inconsistencies have been observed (eg. key process steps or technology not demonstrated, feasibility / build concept are not in line with the definition dossier / manufacturing specification).

D

No build concept, no technology demonstration, no feasibility plan exist (even on similar product).

Comments:

1.4 Manufacturing & Inspection Dossier The objective of this brick is to verify the:

1. Completeness of the Manufacturing and Inspection Dossier (e.g. work orders, drawings, BOM, procedures, work instructions, routing, traveler sheets, etc) contributing to production process control (manufacturing repeatability and risk reduction)

2. Consistency between documents (Manufacturing & Inspection Dossier, Definition Dossier, etc) and the Product Does the Supplier have a complete Manufacturing and Inspection Dossier? - Drawings at the correct issue - Bill of Materials (BOM) - Special instructions (technique, manufacturing, installation, storage, handling…) and issue referenced - Component Delivery Specifications (CDS) signed at the correct issue (when applicable for aerostrucutre) - Manufacturing and inspection / test tools (including software/ program with issue) referenced - Manufacturing and inspection / test procedures referenced with issue - Sufficiently clear and detailed manufacturing instructions /test instructions (e.g sheets, online database...) - Routing (Process sheets, Master routers) - Work Orders - Traveler Sheets - Record of changes (e.g. design, industrial process, ...)

Does the Supplier have a complete Routing? - Product description - Part number (and S/N or MSN when applicable) - Airbone software identification - All manufacturing / assembly operations (including special processes) up to delivery - All inspection / test operations up to delivery - Process sheets for packaging and dispatch (including customer requirements such as Product identification, packaging used and identification, documentation expected) - Manufacturing & assembly instructions specify means & methods to be used - Inspection / test instructions specify means, methods acceptance criteria, and procedure for recording results

1 Does the Supplier have complete Work Orders? - Unique work order number - Certifiable steps in accordance with the industrial process flow - Reference of Means & Tools required for each step (including Numerical Control (NC) programs) - Reference to standard operation instructions or station documents - MSN number (when applicable) - Part number identification - Reference to applicable specifications (e.g. AIPIs) - Reference to inspection/test instructions (e.g. ATP) - Record of reference numbers of deviations ( e.g. in case of internal Quality Note, Concession etc.) if not already included in the traveler sheet - Changes are tracked and highlighted

Does the supplier manage the work orders for outsourced process steps? Is there a full consistency between Manufacturing & Inspection Dossier and Definition Dossier? Is there a formal process to adress and cascade changes from the Definition Dossier?

2

- Manufacturing & Inspection Dossier is updated accordingly - Impact to the sub-tiers (purchase order, inventories, point of embodiment, etc) Is there a full consistency between Manufacturing & Inspection Dossier and the Product? Are deviations between released product configuration & approved configuration recorded? - In case of internal Quality Note, Concession etc.

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope and Basics in Selection and Series

A+

A B

The Manufacturing and Inspection Dossier is benchmark level and exceeds Airbus expectations (e.g. paperless / fully automatised workorders, bar code scanning, etc). The Manufacturing and Inspection Dossier is complete, fully adapted to manufacturing activities and fully consistent with the product. The Manufacturing and Inspection Dossier is adapted to manufacturing activities but contains minor inconsistencies (mistakes, omissions).

C

The Manufacturing and Inspection Dossier, is not adapted to manufacturing activities (e.g. work order breakdown not detailed enough), exists with some major inconsistencies and is not up to date.

D

The Manufacturing and Inspection Dossier is missing or does not match the actual Product manufacturing.

Comments:

1.5 Production Documentation Management The objective of this brick is to verify the:

1. Capability to develop clear and complete working instructions 2. Rules to manage the production documentation used at shop floor (e.g. control of updates, archiving, etc) 3. Application of control rules on the shop floor (e.g. spot check of shop floor documentation) for work orders, delivery documentation, acceptance test reports, etc Does the Supplier have a documented process(es) for producing and controlling  manufacturing and inspection / test instructions? - Function responsible for writing the documents - IT tool used - Verification and validation steps - Control of changes (industrial or design change) - Rules for distribution, archiving - Minimum content (including customer requirements)

1 When rework is generated by non-conformances or concessions, does the Supplier have a process to produce work orders? Does the Supplier have a documented process(es) for controlling production documentation used on the shopfloor? - Approval of the released documentation (e.g. by Accredited Staff) - Management of updates and amendments - Rules for archiving - Accesibility (when paperless policy is applied, control & accessibility for all operators/ inspectors) - Rules for retrieving easily obsolete documentation and data Does the Supplier have a formal process to manage Customer documentation  impacting manufacturing and supply chain?

2

- Documents listed in the contract* * for Airbus: cADL - Use of applicable Customer technical documents (e.g for Airbus: PTS, ABDs,...) § Availability § Distribution § Update - Use and completion of Customer Interchangeability (ICY) documentation* * for Airbus: IC16 & IC17 forms - when applicable - Cascade & distribution of the documentation within Supplier's organisation & its sub- tiers

Does the Supplier have a formal process to control that delivery documentation is correctly attached to the product? Is the use of documentation on the shopfloor under control? - Use of consistent issues - Up to date authorised versions (and without hand amendment) - According to configuration & distribution rules - No unauthorised changes/notes written on by the operators/ inspectors - No personal copies - Accesibility - Evidence of clarity/legibility (e.g. operator's language) Does the supplier use Standard Operation Instructions on the shopfloor?

3

- for production machines - available at the work stations - for process parameter automatic download (i.e. no manual input for process parameters in production machines) Does the supplier provide delivery documentation compliant with customer/authorities expectations? - Release Certificate § Authorized Release Certificate (ARC): EASA Form 1, or JAA form 1, or FAA Form 8130-3 & 8130-4, or TCCA form 24-0078 OR Certificate of Conformity (CoC) or Declaration of Conformance (DC) - Equipment Label* * for Airbus: Label CT 176 - when applicable - Concession form accepted by Customer (when applicable) - Specific Documentation required by the Customer* - for Airbus: Constituent Assembly Inspection Report CAIR - Attached with the Product Packaging if required - Registration and archiving (e.g. If computerised, which paper documents are still available)

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope and Basics in Selection

A+

Production Documentation Management is benchmark level (e.g. all Production Documents are electronically linked to the Design Office database for immediate update including automatic operation checks, etc).

A

Procedure and process are in place to develop clear and complete working instructions in accordance with the manufacturing and inspection dossier. Documents are clear, consistent, under control and accessible for every operator/ inspector.

B

Procedure and process are in place to develop complete working instructions in accordance with the manufacturing and inspection dossier, but some minor inconsistencies are observed. Documents are consistent and under control but clarity or accessibility can be improved.

C

Procedure and process are in place to develop working instructions in accordance with the manufacturing and inspection dossier, but some major inconsistencies are observed. Some documents are not accessible by the operators or not consistent, or out of control but without impact on operations.

D

Procedure and process are not in place to develop working instructions in accordance with the manufacturing and inspection dossier (even on similar product). Documents used by operators/ inspectors are out of control (bad issue, false addition, etc) and lead to bad operations.

Comments:

2.1 Manufacturing & Distribution Rules The objective of this brick is to verify the: 1. Definition and management of manufacturing & distribution rules

2. Inventory management 3. Push Pull management system 4. Backorder Management (monitoring of the completion of manufacturing orders and purchasing orders in the event of delivery delay risks or poor quality at customer side) Does the Supplier define manufacturing rules? - Documented - Consistent with their objectives and constraints - Compliant with Customer requirements Does the Supplier define distribution rules? - Documented policy - Applied to fulfill Customer requirements: packaging, shipping, customs, VMI, stock management, etc (e.g. Contractual logistic condition, Incoterms, etc) Are there means and/ or procedure in place to ensure a real time production and inventory level follow-up (bar codes, RFID, etc)?

1

Does the Supplier have a procedure implemented to calculate lead times? - Internal and external lead times recorded in ERP compared to the actual internal and external lead times - Comparison result used to improve lead time accuracy in the ERP system (updates, strategic decisions, KPIs, etc) Does the Supplier control data accuracy for Bill of Material, Inventory level, Routing Sheet? - Bill of Material (minimum level: 98%)* - Routing Sheet (minimum level: 95%)* *Percentage values are given according to international standards Does the Supplier have a complete process to manage Inventory? - Procured parts - Work in Process (WIP) - Final products Does the Supplier have an inventory strategy / policy with objectives / parameters in place, that guarantee inventory accuracy?

2

- Inventory level objectives (part/value) - Accuracy objectives (minimum level: 95%)* - Service level satisfaction objectives Does the supplier define rules for inventory management? - Minimum inventory level / safety stock: - Taking into account aftermarket demand (spares, retrofit, etc) - Taking into account internal & external rejects - Inventory rotation (FIFO, or other) - Inventory picking/prioritization (e.g. for AOG orders, etc) Preamble: Push system can be used in combination with Pull system. Push system is used for additional planning including long lead time purchased items, adding resources and implementing Product design changes. Once Push system has the materials & resources lined up, Pull system is used as an execution system, bringing a rapid response to customers’ orders and reducing inventory level throughout the process.

Does the Supplier have a Pull-Push Strategy? - Decoupling point (stock) coherent with contractual logistic conditions (manufacturing and customer lead times) Does the Supplier manage the production according to the Push System Strategy? - Cycle time (internal) and lead time (external) known and continuously updated in the Production Management System - Batch sizes and capacity well defined - Inventory level adjusted to production schedule - Short term planning (scheduling) consistent with medium and long term planning (MPS) - All scheduled idle times (lunch, break, 1st maintenance…) taken into account - All non-scheduled breaks managed - Ramp-ups defined and scheduled

3 Does the Supplier manage the production according to the Pull System Strategy? - The choice of operating in a Pull system justified (e.g. steady customer demand, sufficient volume, stable product design & manufacturing process) - The Takt time (with 100% OTD) known and applied - Work-centre flexible enough to ensure a continuous flow - For Kanban loop, upstream work-centre is more flexible than the downstream one - For Kanban set up, number of Kanban is based on cycle time, safety stock within the process, customer demand rate and/or size of the bin - Continuous flow ensured (e.g. high quality level, quality gates, line of balance, production line load/capacity balance along the work centers, etc.)

Does the Supplier identify backorders? - Rules for identification - Identified early in the manufacturing process Does the Supplier have rules and tools for managing backorders? - Tools in place (e.g. line of balance or similar) - Rules for prioritization (including shipping area)

4 IPCA+ Master Questionnaire FULL SCOPE - AIRBUS

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

B

C

D

MRP system is benchmark level, includes all relevant up-to-date data necessary for anticipating risks and delays such as lead times, process efficiency, and it is a driver for continuous improvement. For each Product family, manufacturing and distribution rules are defined, applied and continuously monitored based on relevant parameters (specially if target performances are not met e.g. inventory level, internal OTD or Quality, etc). Rules and priority for backorder management are defined, applied and fully known by all. No major delay (internal and external) – situation is under control. For each Product family, manufacturing and distribution rules, are defined but not complete, or applied with some minor inconsistencies or not monitored on a regular basis. Rules for backorder management are applied, but the definition is not complete. Some cases of delays are observed. Manufacturing and distribution rules are defined, but not adequate or not fully applied or leading to major inconsistencies Rules for backorder management are defined, but not adequate or effective (e.g. major delays are observed). Manufacturing and distribution rules are not applied. Rules for backorder management are not applied, major delays are observed and situation is not under control.

Comments:

2.2 Production Management System & Procurement triggering Mode The objective of this brick is to verify the:

1. Use of Purchaser Data (Procurement Plans including Forecasts & Call-ups) 2. Production Management System ensures effective Production Scheduling 3. Procurement Triggering Mode management (e.g. Processing procurement plans (forecasts and purchase orders) with the sub- tiers) Are Customer Procurement Plans including Forecasts & Call-ups used by the supplier? (for MPS and MRP calculation) - Use of electronic data exchange means (e.g. mails, portals…) Is there a formal process to check and acknowledge the Procurement Plans including Forecasts and call-ups to Customer? - Compare two successive Procurement Plans - Compare the quantities called in the forecasts and those of the Procurement Plans - Inform Customer when forecast variation are not manageable

1 Does the Supplier anticipate the variation of the Customer demand? Does the Supplier take into account the Customer Logistic conditions? Does the Supplier control the Purchase order prior to launch the production orders? - Changes related to quantity, dates, delivery point… - In accordance with technical specification / modification standard Is there a dedicated Production Management System (ERP system) used in order to manage the production? Does this Production Management System include long, medium and short term planning activities (SOP, MPS, MRP and PAC)? - Long, medium and short horizons are consistent with the Supplier cycle time and cumulative lead time - All the plans periodically reviewed - Systematic check with feedback loops to ensure consistency between different levels of planning - Reporting and status control in place

Is data consistency ensured throughout a fully integrated IT system?

2

Are all Customer Procurement Plans including forecasts and backlog integrated in the Production Management System? - Ramp-up - Scrap - Rework - Rejection Rate - Spares - Repairs - Retrofit Is there a systematic check of consistency between planning activities (SOP, MPS, MRP and PAC) and capacity at different levels? - Capacity planning fully integrated Is there an existing contractual policy with the sub-tiers to support forecasts cascaded?

Does the Supplier integrate sub-tier lead times? - In the ERP system - In line with the contract terms Does the Supplier use both Forecasts and purchase order to communicate and secure its needs (e.g. ramp-up) throughout its supply chain?

3

- Consistent with lead time of purchased items - Agreed between supplier and sub-tiers Are Procurement Plans and purchase orders in line with the MRP results (e.g. no manual amendment prior to external release)? Does the Supplier send complete Purchase Orders to sub-tiers? - exact identification of the product to be purchased - specification, drawing, process requirements, inspection instructions and other applicable technical documents - request of necessary verification documents (CoC, Analysis Reports, ATR, Airworthiness Certificate, etc.) - request of necessary FAI reports for first deliveries

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope and Basics in Selection and Series

A+

A

B

C

D

Production Management System & use of purchaser data are benchmark level and proven effective on the Product. Airbus expectations are exceeded. Processing of procurement plans is at benchmark level (e.g. purchase orders and forecasts are fully integrated / shared in the IT system). Airbus Procurement Plans/ forecasts and call-ups are integrated to the Supplier’s ERP and there is a formal process to compare 2 successive PP or one PP to the related call-ups. All main components of the Production Management System are used and linked by closed loops (SOP, MPS, MRP, PAC, Capacity planning). Forecast (based on a contractual policy) sent to sub-tiers on a regular basis (usually monthly). Purchase orders and forecasts are fully controlled by IT system. Airbus Procurement Plans/ forecasts and call-ups are integrated to the supplier’s ERP but there is no formal process to compare two successive PP or one PP to the related call-ups. Main components of the Production Management System are used linked by closed loops. Capacity planning is not fully integrated. Forecast (based on a contractual policy) sent to key sub-tiers on a regular basis (usually monthly). Few purchase orders generated manually. Forecast fully controlled by IT System.

Airbus Procurement Plans/ forecasts is not fully used (horizon). There is an informal process to follow-up call-up quantity. The Production Management System consists mainly of MRP. There is no formal link between MRP and capacity planning. Forecast sent to few suppliers or forecast not related to a contractual policy. Most forecasts and generated orders are released manually. Only call-ups are used. Monitoring of call-ups process is not effective. The Production Management System consists mainly of MRP and additional dispatch lists are systematically used. There is no formal link between MRP and capacity planning. Shortages and delays are widely spread on the shop floor. No forecast sent to sub-tiers. Purchase orders are generated manually.

Comments:

2.3 Capacity Management The objective of this brick is to verify the:

1. Capacity analysis and IT system interface 2. Capacity calculation and decision making 3. Bottleneck management and Single means management Does the Supplier have a formal process to assess capacity including Resource Plan  at SOP level (Long term), Rough Cut Capacity planning at MPS level (Medium term), Capacity Requirement Plan at MRP level (Medium term) and Input/output control at PAC level (Short term)?

Does the workload capacity analysis include all needs from all customers (and all programmes, series, prototypes, New product ramp-up)? Is the capacity analysis complete? - Open order file (Quantities, due dates and operations) - Planned order releases - Routing file: § Operations to be performed § Sequence of operations § Work centers to be used § Possible alternate work centers § Tooling needed at each operation § Standard times - Work center file (Manufacturing Lead time): § Queue time § Setup time § Run time § Wait time § Move time - Shop Calendar (number of working days available) - long lead-time items - qualification lead-time (standard parts, raw materials, etc)

1 Is the capacity of Sub-contracted processes taken into account in the Supplier's capacity management? Is the frequency defined for capacity plans reviews/updates Is the Capacity analysis automatically interfaced with the Production Management System? Does the supplier compare rated capacity (calculated) with demonstrated capacity (measured) to ensure calculation accuracy? Does the Supplier use Productivity (Utilisation x Efficiency) for calculation? Is there a workload profile in the ERP system? - Overall - By work center (cells) / machine - For human resources Does the supplier analyse the workload on short, medium and long term?

2

- Year - Month - Week - In shift (1 x 8, 2 x 8, 3 x 8, weekend, etc) Has the Supplier got a strategy and formal action plan to adapt their production to the variation of the demand? (e.g. chase strategy, production leveling, etc) Does the Supplier got a strategy and formal action plan to meet capacity variation?

- Flexible working hours (e.g. agreement on 2 x 8 or 3 x 8 shifts, on overtime or flextime, etc) - Workforce unions agreements - Implement Machine Interchangeability (e.g. Numerical Control Software)

Does the Supplier identify, monitor and manage single means? - Identification of all the single means of production - Capacities of the single means of production permanently managed to avoid bottleneck - Contingency/ back-up plans (rerouting flexibility, subcontracting, off-load, etc) in place in case of failure

3 Does the Supplier identify, monitor and manage bottlenecks? - Identification of all the bottlenecks (Manpower, equipment, machine, test, etc) - Control the rate of material feeding the bottleneck - KPIs to monitor bottleneck in place

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

Workload and capacity management are at benchmark level.

A

Workload and capacity are compared at long, medium and short terms and automatically interfaced with the Production Management System. Rules to ensure robust capacity calculation are defined, fully applied and proven effective. Single means and bottlenecks are identified and managed (incl. Contingency/ backup plan ready to deploy).

B

C

D

Workload and capacity are compared at medium and short terms and interfaced with the Production Management System. Rules to ensure robust capacity calculation are defined and applied, but the definition is not complete, or applied with some minor inconsistencies. Single means and bottlenecks are identified, but are not fully managed (incl. Contingency/ backup plan defined, but not ready to deploy). Workload and capacity are roughly compared. Overloads managed on short term only. Rules to ensure robust capacity calculation are defined but not adequate, effective or applied leading to major inconsistencies. Single means and bottlenecks identified, but not managed. No workload/ capacity comparison. No rules in place to ensure robust capacity calculation. Single means and bottlenecks are not identified.

Comments:

3.1 Industrial Human Resource Management The objective of this brick is to verify that Supplier have: 1. A Manufacturing Engineering* (or equivalent) Organisation in place * Interface between product design and manufacturing, assisting in the realisation of design intent into the manufacture of products.

2. Resources Availability and Skills Management 3. Certification / qualification of operators/ inspectors and Training Plan Note: Scope to be evaluated is blue (e.g. operators, inspectors etc) and white collar staff (e.g. preparators, shop support, etc)

Is there a dedicated Manufacturing Engineering organisation?

1

- within Supplier organisation - for this WP (including percentage dedication to this work package) Is there a policy / procedure that describes the purpose and objective of this organisation? - including tasks, method and Industrial Leader for NPI Does the Supplier have a formal process to ensure resources availability? - Specific to the project/WP - In accordance with company overall capacity - Ratio between permanent and subcontracted resources (e.g for manufacturing engineering) - Identification and mitigation of risks associated to outsourcing of activities

Does the Supplier have a process for identifying and managing new skills  development for his resources (white and blue collar)? - Job evaluation - Comparison of current skills vs. Programme needs - In correlation with HR turn-over, out-coming & retirements - New skills needed for this product/WP - Skills for development, entry into production and ramp-up - Mitigation actions / back-up been defined for each skill

2

Does the Supplier identify and manage critical skills ? - Skills requiring specific competencies - Skills requiring long qualification process - Analysis by skill type (e.g. for needed ME resources such as NC programmer, elementary part experts, assembly experts, automated prgorammers, CMM, automatic tape laying, single station operators, etc.) - Identification and mitigation of related risks

Does a skills matrix exist and is maintained? - Up-to-date - List of the personnel and their qualifications /certification status including competence level, qualification date, renewal, maintenance period, etc. - Defined per technology/process/product ... - Qualification categories (e.g. inspector, operator, etc.) Does a strategy / plan exist to ensure workforce flexibility ? - Human resources polyvalence (e.g. multi-workstation training, etc) - Resource allocation flexibility (e.g. between programmes, customers or sites)

Does the Supplier have a formal process for the operator or inspector qualification / certification ? - For personnel in charge of producing delivery documentation - For personnel in charge of industrialisation who sign drawings or validating manufacturability - For Special Processes, maintenance, repair, inspection

3

Does the Supplier follow-up and maintain the certification/ qualification level of operators/ inspectors? - Periodicity - Renewal Does the Supplier have a formal process for managing inspection delegations? (If Supplier outsources inspection) Does a training plan exist for all skills? - Is this training plan updated regularly (e.g. how many people are currently on training)?

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

B

C

D

Complete control of personnel in term of organisation, availability, qualification, training and new skill development are at benchmark level Manufacturing Engineering Organisation procedure is well defined and applied. Resource risks are properly managed. Skills are available and well managed (e.g. exhaustive skills matrix etc). Maintenance of certification/ qualification and Training plan covering all skills are available, complete and properly managed including evidence that people are qualified/trained. Manufacturing Engineering Organisation procedure is well defined and applied but with minor inconsistencies. Skills management are well managed but low back-up for some competencies without any associated training plan. Maintenance of certification/ qualification and Training plan are in place but not systematically updated. Manufacturing Engineering organisation procedure defined but not applied or no written procedure but process in place. Lack of evidence that people are qualified/trained or no back-up for key competencies without any associated training plan. Lack of Maintenance of certification/ qualification. No Manufacturing Engineering Organisation in place. No adequate skills available. No qualification / training records available.

Comments:

3.2 Facility Management: Premises & Means The objective of this brick is to verify:

1. Capability of the supplier to analyse facility requirements (building & means) to optimise product manufacturing capacity 2. Capability of the supplier to have a strong specification and commissioning process (including technical specialists) for buying new facilities and machines 3. Supplier has an optimised Industrial shop floor layout and well organised & clean areas (e.g. work stations) Does the Supplier evaluate existing and/or future facility requirements (building & means)? - The workpackage - Technical needs including special process requirements - Specific ramp-up requirements - Full production rate - Delivery risks due to location of facility - Constraints on plant extension (e.g. size limitation, green belt, conservation areas, etc)

1 How is the rate ramp-up been taken into account for current and future facility requirements?

Does the Supplier have a dedicated process for buying new Facilities? - Design & Risk Analysis for new Facilities - Specify new Facility - Select Building contractors

2

Does the Supplier have a dedicated process for buying new Machines? - Design & Risk Analysis for new Machines - Specify new Machines - Select Machining contractors Does the Supplier have detailed project plans (including schedule) for constructing & commissioning all new facilities for this work package? Does the Supplier have an optimised Industrial shop floor layout? - Mapping of the shopfloor (eg spaghetti diagram) - Methodology / tool used for the shopfloor optimisation - Tool to simulate part manufacturing and assembly flow Are workstations well designed (e.g. ergonomics, defined walkways, etc)? - Ergonomics - Defined walkways - Location well identified Are preparation areas adequate? (Tooling, Kiting, Shipping, etc) - Size - Location - Access - Clearly identified Are waiting areas identified? - Parts stored while waiting for the release of the test report - Location - Clearly identified Are areas for quarantine (storage of scrapped parts) adequate?

3

- Locked - Size - Location - Access - Clearly identified Does the Supplier areas organisation prevent FOD? - Housekeeping/5S dispositions to ensure manufacturing, storage and operational areas remain clean and tidy - Periodic tools and toolboxes check (inventory), registration of lost tools Are areas clean, tidy and appropriately lit? Where environmental control is required, are all parameters under control? - Temperature - Relative humidity - Vacuum system - Air cleanliness - ESD protection (e.g. Bracelet, heel pad, floor covering, Antistatic containers for product transportation,...)

- Temperature - Relative humidity - Vacuum system - Air cleanliness - ESD protection (e.g. Bracelet, heel pad, floor covering, Antistatic containers for product transportation,...) Are areas dedicated to Part 21 & Part 145 clearly identified and separated in the shopfloor?

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope and Basics in Selection

A+ A

B

World-class capability to specify & implement optimised facility, lean organisation of premises, shop-floor layouts and "state of the art" working stations and working conditions are at benchmark level. Capability to specify & commission optimised facility. Cleanliness of premises and workshops is appropriate and the shopfloor is well organised. Specification or commissioning of facility not fully optimised. Premises and workshops are clean but the organisation of the workshops is not fully optimised on the whole production line.

C

Specification and commissioning of facility not optimised. Cleanliness problems in premises and workshops. Shop floor layout is not optimised.

D

No capability to specify and commission facility. Very poor workshop and workstations organisation. Shop floor layout or production flow is not appropriate.

Comments:

3.3 Qualification / Maintenance of Means & Tools and Calibration of Measurement Equipment The objective of this brick is to verify:

1. Qualification / Certification of manufacturing / inspection Means & Tools (sub-process, special process, machines, jigs and tools)

2. Maintenance (corrective, preventive) of manufacturing / inspection Means & Tools and calibration of measurement equipment Is there evidence of Qualification / Certification of manufacturing / inspection Means & Tools?

- Method / procedure - Qualification / Certification report When there are special processes, are they properly qualified and monitored ? - Validated/Qualified by Customer - Certified by external Body (e.g. Pri-NADCAP) Does the Supplier follow Customer requirements for Tools manufacture acceptance?

1

- Labelling of Tools, functionl testing, etc - Including Tools manufactured by Sub-tiers Does the Supplier ensure the (re-)qualification / Certification of means & Tools? - Re-qualification/Certification schedules - Use of Standard Operating Instruction and subsequent appropriate Devices (e.g. laser tracker, physical or digital master, etc.) - If applicable, focus on ICY (Interchangeability) Specific Tooling - For Specific Tooling, done at least every 2 years unless otherwise defined in tooling documentation - In case of Modification / Replacement / Duplication Does the Supplier ensure that disqualified tools are not used for production? Are there rules defined and applied to keep means and tools up to date ? - Status - Reference - Specific locations, - Storage conditions (e.g. CMM located in a room with environmental control,... ) - Handling (Including necessary treatments/protection for moulds, drills, mills, cutters, etc) - Appearance, tidiness … Does the Supplier have a process to secure maintenance of manufacturing / inspection Means and Tools ? - Risk analysis including mitigation actions (e.g. for intervention times, parts stocks) - Corrective, preventive, predictive (key machine parameters) methods (e.g. TPM) - First level maintenance carried out by Operators - Small repairs workshop, spare parts (eg. pins) lists available - Procedures - Frequency and KPIs - Automatic call - Records (e.g. computerised) - Approval labels (with date of next maintenance) - Use of feedback from Continuous Improvement of maintenance procedures - Follow-up of failures and their frequency (associated indicators, objectives and root cause analysis) - Manufacturer Maintenance Recommendations

Does the Supplier have a Preventive Maintenance Plan for plant equipment? - Cranes, clean rooms, air conditioning, etc Does the Supplier have a process in place to ensure that tooling & means (not requiring calibration) are fit for purpose? (e.g. visual checks before and after use of tools or means as a minimum)

When the maintenance is subcontracted, Is there a formal process to secure this activity?

2 - External maintenance activities clearly defined - Contract (e.g. SLA) in place with certified service providers Does the Supplier have a maintenance service level agreement with the production? Does the Supplier use the OEE (availability x performance x quality) as maintenance KPI for the machine ? Is the maintenance duration calculated per mean/ tool and used for OEE calculation or rated capacity ?

Does the Supplier have a process to ensure measurement equipment calibration? - Risk analysis including mitigation actions - Lessons learned - Procedures - Calibration planning with due dates properly managed - Automatic call - Records (e.g. computerised) - Approval labels (with date of next calibration for measuring equipment, crimping pliers, etc) - Calibration labels on equipment with no expired date Does the Supplier have a process in place to manage the impact when means & Tools are detected non-conform during Calibration? - linked with the traceability operations / Means & Tools Does the Supplier have the capability to repair and calibrate tooling from drawings/specification?

IPCA+ Master Questionnaire FULL SCOPE - AIRBUS

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

B

C

D

Qualification and Maintenance of Manufacturing / Inspection Means & Tools are benchmark level and proven effective on the Product (e.g. no means & tools out of service for several years). Written procedure or process for qualification / approval is fully and effectively applied on all Manufacturing / Inspection means & tools. Corrective, preventive and predictive maintenance is defined, in place and effective. Calibration process is defined , in place and effective Written procedure or process for qualification / approval is effectively applied on all Manufacturing / Inspection means & tools, but is not complete or with minor inconsistencies. Corrective and preventive maintenance is in place and effective but not correctly documented or with minor discrepancies. Calibration process is in place and effective but some minors discrepancies have been observed

Written procedure or process for qualification / approval of Manufacturing / Inspection means & tools is not adequate or with major inconsistencies. Qualification / approval of Manufacturing / Inspection means & tools is not always updated in case of change. Maintenance in place is not effective with major discrepancies. For some means & tools only corrective maintenance is in place. Calibration process is not effective .Some calibration stickers on equipment have expired date.

No written procedure or process for qualification / approval of Manufacturing / Inspection means & tools , and no maintenance and calibration

Comments:

4.1 Specific Tooling* Development (*) tooling specifically required by Customer Contract for the development, testing, manufacture and support for the product (e.g. mould tools, drill jigs, assembly tools,…) The objective of this brick is to assess the Supplier's:

1. Specific Tooling Development Plan 2. Specific Tooling concept & Design 3. Specific Tooling manufacture & certification Does the Supplier have a Plan/schedule for specific tooling development?

1

- Planning with concurrent activities including Customer acceptance milestones, key dependencies, critical path - Reporting methods and frequency, KPIs, budget spend/forecast reporting - Resources (manning) / machine capability & capacity - Provide a risk analysis When activities are Subcontracted, does the Supplier have a policy? - Scope covers concept, design, manufacturing and certification - "make or buy" decision gate - subcontractors control and requirements cascade Does the Supplier have a clear understanding of Customer directives, standards and legislation for the concept and design? - Directive A1094 latest issue - Tooling Concept Template" FM1102033 - Use of CATIA V5 - Required language by Customer (e.g. For Airbus: English) - Metric system - Use of Customer tool number - Demonstrate that the Specific Tooling do not stress or damage the product - Product or process KC - Contractual Interchangeability (ICY) - Interface features cascaded in Specific Tooling design - Specific Tooling Handing system anticipated and coherent with logisitic flows and protecting the part - Incorporation of lean principles such as Poka Yoke or error proofing principles

2 Does the Supplier have an Internal Procedure to define and choose the specific tool concept? (incl. Customer Acceptance revue and Supplier multifunctional team validation /signatories)

- Specify the source data to be used for Specific Tooling Concept & Design - Concept acceptance obtained from Customer - Design acceptance obtained from Customer Does the Supplier manufacture and certify the Specific Tooling according to Customer standards?

3 Rank

- Manufacture acceptance obtained from Customer prior to the release to Production - Certification acceptance obtained from Customer when the final a/c item DFM (Data For Manufacture) is released - All Certifcates of conformities (CoC) available on request - Label stamped "build as designed" and after FAI "ready for manufacturing"

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

Tooling Specific Development is exceeding Customer expectations. Design and Concept are at benchmark level (eg. is including pre-stress analysis; all pokayoke systems already defined and prooven effective, etc.) Tooling Specific Development is meeting Customer expectations: plan is clear and on track and Supplier is showing capability to control and execute it. Design and Concept are robust and involving a complete multifunctional team, all pokayoke systems already defined. Design and Concept Acceptance forms are managed. Manufacture and Certification acceptance forms are obtained or about to be, CoC are available, tooling are properly identified with adequate stamps and labels.

B

C

D

Tooling Specific Developement is under control but with minor gaps: Plan presented show minor inconsistencies (e.g. make or buy not fully decided, risk analysis not covering minor tooling, progress reporting with minor inconsistencies); Concept shall be complete, the one presented show minor inconsistencies (eg.Customer template not used); Design capability is showing minor inconsistencies; Concept and Design acceptance not managed. Procedure to certify tooling exisiting and deployed. Manufacture and Certification acceptance forms are obtained or about to be, CoC are available, tooling are properly identified with adequate stamps and labels.

Tooling Specific Developement is at risk: Plan with major inconsistencies (e.g. critical path not identified, risk analysis not considering outsourced activities, make or buy decisions delayed, no visibility or not updated with major impact); Concept presented but with major inconsistencies (e.g. it does not specify properly the data sources to be used, KC or interfaces not considered, ICY not taken into consideration, validation not done via multifunctionnal team, ergonomy not considered); Design capability is showing major inconsistencies (eg. no stress study planned; inother tooling drawings: KC not appearing, english and metric system not used). Procedure to certify the tooling exisiting but not deployed on this work package. Some Tooling Manufacturing and certification acceptance forms and CoC are missing or not managed, adequate stamps and labels sometimes missing on the tooling.

No Developement Plan. No concept presented, design capability not matching expectations (eg. catia v5 use not planned; reluctancy to meet Customer requirement). Procedure to certify the tooling not exisiting and not deployed on this work package.

Comments:

4.2 Specific Tooling* Management (*) tooling specifically required by Customer Contract for the development, testing, manufacture and support for the product (e.g. mould tools, drill jigs, assembly tools,…) The objective of this brick is to assess the Supplier's:

1. Specific Tooling Dossier and Tooling Register. 2. Specific Tooling Replacement and duplication 3. Specific Tooling storage and disposal Does the Supplier manage properly the Tooling Dossier? - All specific tooling technical documentation is compiled/stored - Unique Tooling Dossier for each Specific Tooling - Copy to be provided to Customer on request - Tooling Dossier contents: § Design data set includes: Design documentation, Stress calculations, Tooling Risk analysis, environemental Health and Safety, Customer acceptance reports for concept and design stages. § Manufacture Data Set includes: certificates, measurement and functionnal tests, Customer acceptance report for manufacture § In Service Data set includes: Maintenance documentation, re-certification documentation, history cards, tool user manual

1 Does the Supplier have a complete Tooling Register, up to date and communicated to Customer? - According to the FM0902097 template - Latest update communicated to the customer: < 12 months Does the Supplier manage properly the Specific Tooling replacement and duplication? - Tool Status Check performed by the Supplier or Customer - CAPEX request based on Tool Status Check reports and tooling register

2 3 Does the Supplier have appropriate rules for Specific Tooling Storage and Disposal? - Storage: indoors, clean and dry area, unless otherwise specified in Tooling Dossier - Disposal: Authorization of Customer mandatory using the Tooling disposal Form

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

B

C

D

Comments:

Tooling Dossiers and Tooling Register are exceeding Customer expectations; Specific Tooling are managed exceeding Customer expectations (eg. RFID technology for localisation of tooling, online access granted to Customer for Tooling Dossiers and Tooling Registers) Specific Tooling are managed according to Customer requirements: Tooling Dossier and Tooling Registers are managed and prooven effective and consistent with reality: all data sets are complete and under full control, copies provided on demand, templates according to requirements. Replacement or Duplication are managed using Tool Status Check process. Storage and Disposal is fully securing the tooling. Specific tooling are managed but with minor gaps: Tooling Dossier: missing Customer acceptances forms on tooling manufactured < 2014, Catia v5 not used for tooling manufactured < 2014. Tooling Registers templates used but minor gaps existing (eg. recent modification not reflected in tooling register, In Service Data Set not ready to use). Replacement or Duplication not using Tool Status Check process but a similar one. Storage and Disposal is securing the tooling. Specific Tooling are managed but with major gaps: Tooling Register or Tooling Dossiers uncomplete or with missing entries (eg. Tooling Registers not reflecting reality, some documents from the Data Sets not available on demand, tooling not registered or certificate not available). No process to manage Tooling Replacement or Duplication but only evidences of tooling assessment (not structured). Storage and Disposal is putting at risk the tooling. Specific Tooling are not managed: Tooling Dossiers and Tooling Registers are not managed (no Tooling Register or Tooling Dossier available on demand) neither understood or cascaded. Tooling Replacement or Duplication is not managed (no process exisiting neither "practical" assessment). Storage and Dispoasl is putting at high risk the tooling.

5.1 Industrial Risk Analysis The objective of this brick is to verify:

1. Process Risk Analysis Procedure (e.g. PFMEA procedure) 2. Process Risk Analysis document (e.g. PFMEA ) Is there a Process Risk Analysis procedure (e.g. PFMEA procedure) describing the systematic approach used to mitigate industrial risks? - The scope of application described - The cross-functional team and responsibilities defined - The inputs to be taken into account - The template to be systematically used - The revision history - The trigger to launch a new Process Risk Analysis - The criteria systematically used to quantify and prioritise risks (i.e. Scoring table for Severity, Occurrence and Detection) - Same as those used to quote DFMEA. - The Risk Priority Number RPN = (S)*(O)*(D) level which requires a Preventive/Corrective action to mitigate the risk - How the old Preventive/Corrective actions that have been implemented shall be captured in the Process Risk Analysis (e.g. PFMEA) and revision history - The criteria/trigger to update the Process Risk Analysis: § Regularly with a maximum time period between two consecutive updates § New component or part § New, changed or improved process/sub-process § New, changed or improved sub-contracting activity § Customer requirements § Customer claims § Manufacturing yield data and failure mode occurrence changes § New failure mode § Regular revision of Risk Priority Number (RPN) level which requires a Preventive/Corrective action in order to generate continuous improvement

1 Does the supplier perform a Process Risk Analysis, using a dedicated template/document (e.g. PFMEA)? - The document is in accordance with the procedure Is the Process Risk Analysis document (e.g. PFMEA ) complete? - Outputs of the Product Risk Analysis (e.g. DFMEA) taken into account and reviewed in case of change in specification, design change, product non-conformity - At least all manufacturing steps included in the manufacturing flow chart listed and analyzed - All subcontracted processes listed and analyzed - Potential process related failure modes - Effects of the failure on the customer - Severity quantification of the failure mode - Potential cause of failure - Occurence quantification - Control by prevention/detection for that failure and Detection quantification - Risk Priority Number (RPN) calculation, thus establishing a priority system by ranking the potential failure mode - Preventive/Corrective actions, implementation date, owner, Risk priority Number (RPN) new scoring

2 Are the Severity,Occurence, and Detection scoring consistent with scoring table ?

Does the supplier define systematically Preventive/Corrective action to mitigate risks for Risk Priority Number (RPN) above the target ? Are preventive/corrective actions in place? - Defined - Implemented - Followed-up - The measurement of the effectiveness of the actions performed - The new Risk Priority Number (RPN) calculated - Old Preventive/Corrective actions captured in the Process Risk Analysis (e.g. PFMEA) and revision history

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

B

C

D

Comments:

Procedure is at benchmark level, fully and effectively applied on the whole industrial process. Regular revision of Risk Priority Number (RPN) level which requires a Preventive/Corrective action is performed in a frame of continuous improvement. PFMEA are fully consistent and up to date. Process Risk Analysis procedure is fully and effectively applied on the whole industrial process. Process Risk Analysis document (e.g. PFMEA) is up to date and all risks identified are under control.

Process Risk Analysis procedure is effectively applied on the whole industrial process, but is not complete. Process Risk Analysis document (e.g. PFMEA) is not systematically updated, but all risks identified are under control. Process Risk Analysis procedure is not adequate and is not effectively applied on the whole industrial process. Process Risk Analysis document (e.g. PFMEA) is not up to date or major risks identified are not under control or major inconsistencies observed (e.g. risks, actions and failure mode not correctly identified, ..) No risk analysis performed (even on similar product).

5.2 Key Characteristics and Process Capability Management The objective of this brick is to verify that Supplier: 1. Apply Customer defined KC (e.g. geometrical, dimensional, process key parameters, ...)

2a. Identify their own product characteristics, which are Key 2b. Identify their own process characteristics (parameters), which are Key 3. Measurement System Analysis (MSA) 4. KC monitoring and control 5. Manage variation of KC 6. Cascade KC throughout the supply chain Does the Supplier apply customer defined KC?

1

- From Specification - From Drawings - From Definition Dossier - For Airbus: From AIPI, AIPS (including AIPS for machining), AITM, CER, IPS, etc Does a methodology exist to determine Product / Process key characteristics? Are multi-functional teams involved in the identification of the Product / Process key characteristics?

Have the Product key characteristics been identified? - From Design (when Supplier is responsible for design or involved in Customer plateau) - From Product risks analysis (DFMEA) - From Customer specifications including interfaces, special processes requirements, airbus specifications, etc - From Robustness testing (e.g. HALT, damage tolerance, etc) (when applicable) - From Lessons learnt

2

Have the Process key characteristics been identified? - From Process and sub-process risk analysis (PFMEA) - From Customer specification - From Design of Experiment (when applicable) - From Quality records - From Lessons Learnt Does a list of Product / Process key characteristics exist? Does the Supplier perform a Measurement System Analysis? - Stability, discrimination, accuracy and linearity - Precision (i.e. Gage Repeatability & Reproducibility)

3

Does the Supplier define rules for regular updates? - Yearly basis - After Means/tools Maintenance - After measurement equipment Calibration Does the Supplier use Statistical Process Control (SPC) to monitor the product & process KCs? - Measurement supported by a software - Measurements recorded in real time - Responsibilities, frequency of measurement, etc defined - Operator/ inspector directly involved in case of warning or alert (Reaction Plan) - Recording of modifications When SPC is not used (e.g. Poka Yoke), does the Supplier demonstrate the control procedure effectiveness? - Process or procedure in place to detect the drifts - Measurements recorded in real time - Responsibilities, frequency of measurement defined - Operator/ inspector directly involved in case of warning or alert (reaction plan) - Recording of modifications

4 Comments: Does the Supplier have a process to ensure variation reduction, tolerance management and improvement process? - Function responsible for supervising capability index (i.e. Cp, Cpk) calculation and results - Are Cp, Cpk calculated for each KC and achieve target value?

5 When target values are not achieved, does the Supplier ensure that actions are in place and monitored? - Specific action plan is put in place ensuring continuous improvement? - Check of action effectiveness? Does the Supplier cascade KC throughout the supply chain? Does the Supplier ensure that the KC cascaded throughout the supply chain are monitored?

6 Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

B

C

D

Key Characteristics and Process Capability Management is at benchmark level (e.g. Automatic collection and monitoring of Key characteristics). Airbus expectations are exceeded. Mode of determination of Key characteristics is defined. All Key Characteristics (incl. Customer KCs) are fully and effectively applied on the whole process and product throughout the whole Supply Chain. Measurement System Analysis (at least Gage R&R) are performed for all Key Characteristics in a regular basis. All Key characteristics identified are systematically monitored (e.g. SPC,..) and variations are well managed (e.g. Cp, Cpk calculations). Mode of determination of Key characteristics on process and product is applied throughout the Supply Chain, but is not complete. Measurement System Analysis (at least Gage R&R) are performed for all Key Characteristics but not on a regular basis. Most of the identified Key characteristics are monitored (e.g. SPC,..) and variations are managed.

Mode of determination of Key characteristics on process or product is not adequate or not effectively applied throughout the Supply Chain. Measurement System Analysis (at least Gage R&R) are not performed for all Key Characteristics. Identified Key characteristics are not sufficiently monitored or variations are not managed. Key characteristics are not identified (even on similar product). No Measurement System Analysis (at least Gage R&R).

5.3 Concurrent Engineering The objective of this brick is to verify:

1. “Concurrent Engineering” procedure

2. Application on the Product during Product development and/ or industrialisation phase Does the supplier have a Concurrent Engineering Procedure describing the methodology? - Cross-functional team involving Engineering, Manufacturing, Quality, Supply Chain, Maintainability, etc - Rules to be taken by design office describing constraints/requirements from different functions § Design to Cost § Operational cost § Product maintainability § Reparability and interchangeability - Check lists used during internal product development reviews

1 Is the concurrent engineering principle applied for building a Project schedule?

- Manufacturing Engineering (Industrialisation) activities described - Supply Chain activities described - Quality activities described Is there evidence of application of concurrent engineering methodology? - Participation in the Project meeting of Production representatives covering all Engineering for Manufacturing (Industrialisation) Quality and Supply Chain activities (e.g. Plateau way of working, etc) - Participation in design reviews of Production representatives covering all Engineering for Manufacturing (Industrialisation) Quality and Supply Chain activities - Design For Test (DFT) methodology and tools used - Design For Manufacturing (DFM) / Design To Cost (DTC) methodology and tools used - Tolerance Analysis (Linear/ 2D/ 3D) methodology and tools used - Design For Maintainability methodology (to avoid Ground Support Equipment (GSE) creation or complexe GSE design impacting maintenance operations)

2 Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

Concurrent Engineering is at benchmark level and proven effective on the Product (i.e. all "Design For X" activities are fully covered). Written methodology on "Concurrent Engineering" is in place. "Concurrent Engineering" is fully and effectively applied early during the Product development/industrialisation phase.

B

Written methodology contains minor inconsistencies (e.g. lack of documentation), but concurrent engineering is applied.

C

Written methodology is missing or inadequate Written methodology exists but is not effectively applied on the Product.

D

No concurrent engineering activities performed, and constraints (e.g. industrialisation, testability, maintainability, reparability, etc) have not been taken into account (even on similar product).

Comments:

5.4 Test/Inspection Strategy and Control Plan The objective of this brick is to verify:

1. Test/ inspection strategy and coverage 2. Test/inspection effectiveness 3. Control Plan Does the Supplier define their own test/ inspection strategy (from the incoming inspection to the product delivery)? Note. Take into account the visibility of the test/ inspection strategy through the industrial manufacturing flow chart (all operations, inspection, measurements, etc). Does the Supplier have a complete test/ inspection strategy? - Taking into account: § Customer requirements (e.g. drawing, specification, etc) § New parts (just manufactured) § Rework (rejected parts) § Amendments or modification ( further to design change) § Risk analysis results (e.g. inspection points, etc) § Non-conformance Analysis - Rules during Incoming Inspection: § Verification of suppliers approval and parts' certificate § Inspection procedures for delivered parts § Adequate size for sampling inspection defined - Analysis for NDT and DT needs - Source Inspection (SI) at sub-tiers: § Rules in place to perform Source Inspections § Test plans or procedures for Source Inspections defined § Reference on shipping documents defined § Marking on checked parts / materials for Source Inspection defined

Is the Manufacturing test/ inspection coverage complete? - At component, Sub-assembly or product levels - Test Procedure (e.g. ATP, etc) § ATP validated by Engineering and applied accordingly - Results available in reports (e.g. ATR, etc)

1

Does the Supplier have a sampling policy in place according to an Acceptance Quality Level? - At part/component level - At Sub-assembly level - At product level

Is there an iterative analysis (e.g. Design for Test, Tolerance Analysis,) used ? - To check the testability, including customer requirements - To check the accessibility - To verify the predictive manufacturing test/ inspection coverage for each component/ part Note 1 - For electronic domain only - Each component/ part, manufacturing phase and assembly phase is tested throughout the production process (e.g. Environmental Stress Screening (ESS)) - List of components/ parts covered, not covered, partly covered - Justification of what is not covered or partially covered by the tests/ inspections - Risk mitigation plan defined for non-covered or partially covered components (or parts) - Risk mitigation plan implemented (all actions in place)

Note 2 - For structure domain only: - CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine) appropriate to inspect the product (e.g. accuracy, etc) - Use the appropriate inspection mean (i.e. 2D drawings, 3D data, reference sample etc) to fulfill Specification / Drawing Requirements - Method in place to ensure measurement data are compared to the appropriate referential (online link between machine and referential database) - NDT methodology (ultra sonic, X-Ray, tap coin, water immersion,…) validated by an authorised person (level I, II, III) - Take into account the part geometry in order to assess what NDI (Non-destructive inspection) process and tool to use - Coupon policy in line with Airbus rules (sampling, manufacturing, storage, testing, result approval,…)

Are non-conformities detected as far upstream as possible in the Manufacturing process? - Demonstrate that the types of defects/ non-conformities could not have been detected in the preceding test/ inspection steps Note: it could reveal a lack of coverage of upstream tests/ inspections. Does the Supplier measure Test/Inspection effectiveness ?

2

- Using feedback and achieved quality targets e.g. First Pass Yield (FPY), internal scrap rate, R1, etc - Including test/inspection sampling effectiveness - Measurement System Analysis applied on relevant parameters Does the Supplier have a test/ inspection effectiveness improvement plan? Are the test/ inspection means and tools efficient? - Reliability of records - Lead time optimisation Does the Supplier have a Control Plan to record all Tests/Inspections, measurements, controls?

- Detailed summary in a single document - Product Characteristics and Process Parameters and identification of those which are Key - Product/process specification tolerances - Evaluation/measurement type - Sample size and frequency - Control Method (e.g. inspection gate, reference number, SPC chart ref. number, etc) - Reaction Plan describing the activities to be performed in case of "out-of-control" (i.e. Out of Control Action Plan - OCAP)

3 Is the Control Plan consistent with PFMEA detection & control ? Is the Control Plan up-to-date and subject to revision control? IPCA+ Master Questionnaire FULL SCOPE - AIRBUS

Rank A+

A

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope Test / inspection process is benchmark level and proven effective on the Product. Airbus expectations are exceeded, all defects are screened as upstream as possible with no impact for customer. Test/ inspection strategy and coverage are defined and effectively applied on the Product. Test/ inspection effectiveness is demonstrated, continuously monitored & improved at each test/ inspection step for the whole process and achieve Quality target. Control plan is implemented and encompassed all tests /inspections/ measurements fully compliant with PFMEA (detection & control)

B

Test/ inspection strategy and coverage are effectively applied on the Product, but minor issues observed. Test/ inspection effectiveness is partially demonstrated but an improvement plan exists. Control plan is implemented and encompassed all tests /inspections/ measurements with minor inconsistencies (e.g. one reaction plan is missing, ..)

C

Test/ inspection strategy is not adequate (e.g. late defect detection in manufacturing process). Test/ inspection effectiveness is not demonstrated with no associated improvement plan. Control plan is not fully implemented, some major inconsistencies are observed.

D

No test/ inspection strategy on the Product. Evidence that test/ inspection effectiveness is poor (e.g. major quality escapes observed at the customer). No Measurement System Analysis (at least Gage R&R) No Control plan.

Comments:

5.5 Environmental Stress Screening The objective of this brick is to assess Suppliers:

1.Strategy and determination of Environmental Stress Screening (ESS) - ESS strategy during manufacturing - ESS conditions (determination, validation)

2. Environmental Stress Screening effectiveness through: - Measures, metrics, etc - Use of lessons learnt - Optimisation of ESS Is there an Environmental Stress Screening (ESS) policy? Does the Supplier analyse and justify a need to have an ESS strategy at Product, subassembly (including repairs/ reworks) and/ or component or part level?

Is the procedure for the ESS strategy & definition of conditions complete? - Manufacturing technologies and various subassembly or component technologies - Inputs from robustness tests (limit tests, margins, monitoring of stimuli, etc) - ESS effects on product life - Risk analysis - Design of Experiment - Feedback from experience § On similar product § Root cause family trends, detected during test phases, in particular on "process" and "component" families § Root cause analysis of "aircraft integrated" removals § Root cause analysis of "airline" removals, considering equipment in a "teething" period)

1 Are Environmental Stress Screening (ESS) conditions validated? - ESS conditions (environmental, electrical, functional, etc) justified - An experiment planning validating the right application of these ESS conditions on the Product - Product monitoring (stimuli measurement, product surveillance in the functional coverage sense, etc) defined & justified related to early failures in place - Feedback from experience taken into account (root cause analysis, etc) - ESS analysis based on physic of failures and Product FMEA performed - ESS product lifetime reduction assessed Is Environmental Stress Screening (ESS) effectiveness demonstrated? - Test carried out before/ after ESS (complete or partial, ratio) - Monitoring (stimuli, bite, etc) carried out during ESS - Experiment plan based on dedicated tests demonstrating that all defects are detected with only one ESS cycle (ESS effectiveness demonstration, etc) - ESS effectiveness Metrics (based on defects found during & after ESS) - Feedback (prototypes, R2, airlines, etc) - ESS optimisation plan based on effectiveness metrics & feedback in place

2 Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

B

C

D

Environmental Stress Screening is at benchmark level (e.g. ESS is continuously optimised). R1 targets are exceeded. Environmental Stress Screening strategy is defined & justified. Environmental Stress Screening conditions are defined, adapted & validated. Environmental Stress Screening effectiveness is demonstrated & continuously measured. Environmental Stress Screening strategy is defined & justified. Environmental Stress Screening conditions are defined & adapted, but no demonstration that conditions defined are validated. Environmental Stress Screening is effective, but not fully demonstrated. Environmental Stress Screening strategy is defined, but no demonstration that conditions defined are adapted. Lack of Environmental Stress Screening effectiveness and measurement. Environmental Stress Screening strategy & conditions are not defined or not justified. Evidence that the Environmental Stress Screening is not effective at all (according to internal defect rates, R2, etc).

Comments:

5.6 Obsolescence Management The objective of this brick is to verify:

1. Obsolescence Management Methodology (for means & tools, parts/materials and production processes) 2. Prevention and correction of obsolescence 3. Demonstration of service continuity in case of obsolescence Does the Supplier have an obsolescence management methodology?

1

- Covering Parts/materials - Covering Means & tools - Covering Production processes (manufacturing and test/inspection) Does the Supplier have a complete and updated view of obsolescence status for means & tools, parts/materials and production processes? Does the Supplier have a corrective approach in case an obsolescence is forecasted or declared?

2

- Search for equivalence - Search for a second source - Last buy order - Verification of the impact on the industrial process - Update of Product/ Process/ Procurement risk analyses - For critical component (based on design FMEA), a validation process considering an observation phase waiting For in service returns In case an obsolescence is forecasted or declared, does the Supplier inform the Customer? Does the Supplier have a preventive approach? - Technologal Watch (e.g. Contacts, Visits, Press, Show, Websites, Purchase/Marketing group, Corporate Database, Environmental Regulations, … ) - For electronic products, Life cycle diagrams (cartography) - Mitigation plans defined for identified obsolescence risks (e.g. equivalent component along with a process to demonstrate interchangeability, On going search for continuity of manufacturers and technological sources,..) - Regular review meetings organised, involving multifunction teams

When parts/components are considered as high risk, are there any contractual agreements with their suppliers concerning early warning in case of supplier discontinuance? When redesign/search for equivalence is planned, does the Supplier consider the sizing of the buffer stock? - Time necessary for part equivalence demonstration - Time necessary for redesign (incl. qualification/certification) When last buy orders are placed, does the Supplier consider the sizing of the strategic stock?

3

- Marketing forecasts - Yield of production - Incoming inspection parts/materials sampling for destructive tests (batch sampling tests) - Repairs, rework and retrofit forecasts - Support Is there an indicator on end of life stock (strategic stock) consumption? Is there a formal process to inform Airbus in advance of the proposed solution? Are the obsolescence databases updated? Are obsolescence management system requirements cascaded to sub-tiers?

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

Obsolescence Management is benchmark level and proven effective on the Product. All information sources are considered to prevent obsolescence impact on Airbus products. Written methodology on “Obsolescence management” is fully and effectively applied for all means & tools, parts/materials, regulated substances and production processes potentially affected by obsolescence. It is based on a preventive approach and obsolescence information is updated regularly (e.g. yearly). Action plan is defined and followed up for all obsolescence (declared or forecasted).

B

Written methodology is applied, but is not complete(e.g. obsolescence management is performed, but not fully reflected in the methodology). Obsolescence information is not updated regularly.

C

Written methodology is inadequate (e.g. scope not fully covered) or not effectively applied and is based on a corrective approach. No written methodology but process in place.

D

No obsolescence analysis performed

Comments:

5.7 Industrial Continuous Improvement The objective of this brick is to verify:

1. Continuous Improvement Strategy, Methodology deployed (e.g. Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma, TPM ...) & Validation of effectiveness of results 2. Operators/Inspectors involvement in Continuous Improvement Do the Company objectives include Industrial Continuous Improvement? - Methodology deployed (e.g. Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma, TPM, ... ) - Top priorities & Roadmap Does the Supplier have Continuous Improvement projects?

1

- Consistent with company objectives - Project organisation - Benchmarking activities - Lessons learnt (New & existing products, similar processes, family of parts, Supply Chain ...) - Action(s) plan(s) & follow-up - Metrics & Validation of effectiveness Are the operators/ inspectors aware about relevant information? - Customer feedback (internal & external) - Internal Supplier Performances and objectives (e.g. Rejection rate, On Time Delivery/ delays, etc) - Team members and their activities Is relevant information accesible to operators/inspectors? - Visual management (or equivalent) - Comprehensible and accessible by the operators/ inspectors - Maintained up to date Does the Supplier have a process to formally involve operators’ / inspectors’ in continuous improvement a regular basis? - Operators’ / inspectors’ suggestions collected, analysed and implemented (e.g. Suggestion Board) - Operators/ inspectors and management frequently meet - Operators strongly involved in the line / cell management § Participation to preventive maintenance § Tools preservation § Workstation improvement § Empowerment to act in case of defect, etc)

2 Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

Company Continuous Improvement targets have been exceeded and are at benchmark level. Tangible results have been demonstrated (e.g. R1, D1 targets are continuously raised). Evidence demonstrating that Operators/ inspectors are strongly involved in the generation and implementation of improvement ideas.

A

Company objectives are deployed & supported by well-structured Continuous Improvement initiatives throughout the organisation with validation of effectiveness of results. Operators/ inspectors are aware about relevant informations. Information is visible, easy to understand and continuously updated. Information is shared and used to initiate improvement actions.

B

Company objectives are deployed & supported by well-structured Continuous Improvement initiatives throughout the organisation but without validation of effectiveness of results. Operators/ inspectors are aware about main relevant information. Information is visible, easy to understand but not continuously updated. Information is shared but not effectively used to initiate improvement actions.

C

Continuous improvement activities are not visible. Information exists but with major inconsistencies (e.g.. not visible, not used by the operators/ inspectors, ...)

D

Continuous Improvement approach is not implemented, no improvement action in place or planned and no information is shared with operators/ inspectors (even on similar product).

Comments:

6.1 Procurement (Procured Products) Risk Analysis The objective of this brick is to verify:

1. Procured products Risk Analysis Procedure (including Supply Chain risks )

2. Procured products Risk Register Note : “Procured products are sub-tiers (Suppliers and / or subcontractors) providing raw materials, component, sub assemblies.. Definitions: Supplier = Customer Prime Supplier Sub-tier = Sub-contractors & suppliers of Customer Prime Supplier Does the Supplier have a Risk Analysis procedure describing the systematic approach used to mitigate risks related to Procured Products? - Systematically applied - Risk analysis performed prior to any “make or buy” decision - Risk Analysis done by a cross-functional team and responsible - Methodology and template to be systematically used - Revision history - Criteria systematically used to quantify and prioritize risks level (i.e. scoring table) - Risk level (threshold) which requires a Preventive/Corrective action to mitigate the risk - Criteria/trigger to update Risk Analysis: § New supplier § New raw material or component § new transportation, location § Changes on information flow § Suppliers performances (e.g rejection rate, on time delivery, concessions, etc...) § Suppliers changes in approvals, certifications, etc... (ISO, EN9100, NADCAP, POA, DOA, etc....) § Changes on suppliers financial aspects § Regular revision of Risk level which requires a Preventive/Corrective action in order to generate continuous improvement

1 Does the procedure define how the old Preventive/Corrective actions that have been implemented shall be captured in the Risk Analysis and revision history? Does the Supplier formalize the Risk Analysis in a Risk Register ? - In accordance with the procedure Is the Procured products Risk Register complete? - Risk categories taken into account: § Single sources § Components/ Parts Allocation (raw material availability) § Procurement lead time § Supplier manufacturing process stability and capability § Suppliers performances (e.g rejection rate, on time delivery, concessions,..) § Supplier approvals, certifications, etc... (ISO, EN9100, ISO 14001, NADCAP, POA, DOA,...) § Supplier financial aspects § Procurement from distributors not authorised by the OEM (brokers, etc) (for equipment only) - Risk (or potential) Description list - Current Criticality including Risk Criticality Level established - Preventive/corrective actions for Risk criticality levels above the target (threshold) systematically defined

2 In case of procurement from distributors not authorised by the Customer/OEM, does the supplier mitigate the associated risk? (i.e. brokers) - Information sent to Customer prior to buy - Rules to check the components and parts procured from brokers - Mitigation action & follow-up

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

Written procedure is benchmark level and fully and effectively applied on the whole Procured products. Risk Register is up to date and all risks identified are under control. Regular revision of Risk level which requires a Preventive/Corrective action is performed in a frame of continuous improvement

Written procedure is fully and effectively applied on the whole Procured products. Risk Register is up to date and all risks identified are under control.

B

Written procedure is effectively applied on the whole Procured products but is not complete. Risk Register is not systematically updated, but all risks identified are under control.

C

Written procedure is not adequate and is not effectively applied on the whole Procured products. Risk Register is not up to date or major risks identified are not under control.

D

No risk analysis performed (even on similar product).

Comments:

6.2 Selection of Sub-tiers and Cascade of Requirements The objective of this brick is to verify: 1. Selection of sub-tiers

2. Cascade of Customer industrial requirements to the sub-tiers 3. Verification of industrial requirements assigned to the sub-tiers Definitions: Supplier = Customer Prime Supplier Sub-tier = Sub-contractors & suppliers of Customer Prime Supplier Does the Supplier formalize the process and rules to select its sub-tiers? - Selection Criteria: § Airworthiness Approvals (e.g. EN9100 certification, …) § Audits (e.g. Quality System, ...) § Industrial Assessments (e.g. IPCA+, CCP, …) § Review of performance metrics § Past experiences - Selection Report - Service providers (logistic, tests, documentation, …)

1

Does the Supplier evaluate the sub-tier's industrial capability and capacity to meet customers needs ? Does the Supplier use only approved sub-tiers? - Approved Sub-tiers list: § Supplier/ Product couples qualified by Airbus (For airframe only) § Manufacturing process/ manufacturing site couples qualified by Airbus (For airframe only) - Distributors integrated in Authorised Sub-tier List Does a status of its sub-tiers selection achievements exist? Does the Supplier formalise the cascade of Customer industrial requirements* to its sub-tiers?

- Contract - Statement of Work (SoW) - *at Airbus: Airbus Supplier Requirements (ASR)

2

Does the Supplier justify all the requirements not cascaded to its sub-tiers? Does the Supplier cascade the logistic conditions/requirements to its sub-tiers?

- Clear responsibilities shared between supplier and its sub-tiers - Contractual agreement (e.g. reusable containers, Incoterms, etc) Does the Supplier verify the fulfillment of the industrial requirements cascaded to its sub-tiers?

3 Rank

- Contractual Reviews (e.g. Quality Gates, Development Milestones … ) - Audits/Assessments - Progress Meetings

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope and Basics in Selection

A+

A

B

C

D

Sub-tier Selection process is benchmark (including assessment prior selection, etc). Supplier has a process in place to analyse all Customer industrial requirements, cascade these to the sub-tiers and continuous visibility of their compliance (e.g. compliance matrix). Written procedure for sub-tiers' selection is fully and effectively applied on the Product. Customer industrial requirements are systematically cascaded to the sub-tiers (e.g. by contract, SoW, etc) or justified when not applicable. Industrial requirements cascaded to the sub-tiers are verified. Written procedure for sub-tiers' selection is effectively applied on the Product, but is not complete or with minor inconsistencies. Sub-tier selection process is only applied for key sub-tiers. Customer industrial requirements are systematically cascaded to the sub-tiers (e.g. by contract, SoW, etc), but are not justified when not flown down. Industrial requirements cascaded to the key sub-tiers are verified. Written procedure is not adequate or not effectively applied on the Product or Major inconsistencies have been observed (e.g. use of non-qualified Supplier/ Product or qualified manufacturing process/ manufacturing site couples). Customer industrial requirements are not systematically cascaded to the sub-tiers or verified at the sub-tiers. No written procedure, but process in place.

No sub-tiers' selection process in place Customer Industrial requirements are not cascaded to the sub-tiers.

Comments:

6.3 Sub-tier Monitoring The objective of this brick is to verify the existing supplier evidence of:

1. Sub-tier monitoring and improvement actions 2. Supplier assessment of industrial capability and capacity at sub-tiers Definitions: Supplier = Airbus Prime Supplier Sub-tier = Sub-contractors & suppliers of Airbus Prime Supplier Does the Supplier measure its sub-tier performances? - Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) related to quality, on-time delivery, etc - Calculation rules defined - Complete Scope (i.e. covering all the sub-tiers) - Objectives defined Does the Supplier regularly publish these KPIs to its sub-tiers ? - Dedicated exchange portal or equivalent (e.g. iShare, collaborative tools … ) - Scope (all the sub-tiers or only key sub-tiers) - Frequency (e.g. monthly)

1

Does the Supplier regularly monitor these KPIs with its sub-tiers ? - When KPIs objectives are not met: § recovery process is in place (e.g. line of balance, etc) § improvement process in place (e.g. root cause analysis, etc) - Frequency (e.g. monthly) When non-conformity is identified on product already delivered by the Sub-tier to the Supplier (Product Quality Escape), does the Supplier put in place appropriate actions?

- Communication to Supplier - Containment on parts affected Does the Supplier has a sub-tier surveillance policy (Audit & assessment)? - Rationale (i.e. risk, performance, change, surveillance, triggers …)

Does the Supplier has a procedure to assess industrial process capability and capacity at sub-tier ?

- Organisation involved (e.g. Quality, Supply Chain, Technical experts, …) - Function and qualification of resources (e.g. assessors skills and competencies) - Evaluation system (ranking, scoring, findings, ..) - Action Plan follow-up rules (e.g. action plan responsible, progress review frequency, ..) - Standardized assessment documentation (e.g. Triggers, Questionnaire, report & action plan template …) - For industrial process capability: § Metrics and associated targets for internal quality, external quality and delivery performances § Targets are consistent with Customer requirements § KC identification, monitoring and capability measurement - For capacity: § Forecast integration § Production planning on long, medium & short term § Capacity assessment on long, medium & short term § Purchasing control

2 Does the Supplier perform industrial process capability and capacity assessments at sub-tiers?

- Planning (e.g. rationale, team composition, date, ..) - Results & Reports (e.g. ranking/scoring, findings, ..) - Action plan & Follow-up (e.g. action plan responsible, progress review frequency, up to date status, ..) - Tool(s) used (e.g. database)

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope and Basics in Selection and Series

A+

A

B

C

D

Supplier monitoring is at benchmark level. Improvement actions are proactively generated and effectiveness is verified (demonstrated with good performance results) . Supplier assessment of sub-tier industrial capability and capacity is at benchmark level, in term of organization, procedure and tools. Each supplier is monitored on a regular basis (e.g. monthly) in terms of Quality and On Time Delivery. SMART (Specific Measurable Achievable Realistic Timescale) objectives are agreed with suppliers. Improvement actions are in place & efficient (demonstrated with good performance results). Written Policy and Procedure related to sub-tier assessment on industrial capability and capacity are effectively applied with significant evidence on sub-tier assessment management (e.g. results with action plan follow-up, ..).

Each supplier is periodically monitored in terms of Quality and On Time Delivery. SMART (Specific Measurable Achievable Realistic Timescale) objectives are agreed with suppliers. Incomplete evidence regarding improvement actions in place (mainly in case of poor performances). Written Policy and Procedure related to sub-tier assessment on industrial capability and capacity is applied, but is not complete or with minor inconsistencies.

Key suppliers are sporadically monitored in terms of Quality and On Time Delivery. No clear evidence of corrective action plans in case of poor performance. Written Policy and Procedure related to sub-tier assessment on industrial capability and capacity is not adequate or not effectively applied, leading to major inconsistencies (e.g. Policy not applied, assessment only on capacity or capability, action plan not followed-up, ...) No written Policy and Procedure, but sub-tier assessment in place.

No supplier monitoring (including objectives) and no corrective action plan. No sub-tier industrial capability and capacity assessment.

Comments:

7.1 Non-conformities Management The objective of this brick is to verify that Supplier:

1. Collect and records non-conformities (from procured parts to delivery of final products and Customer returns) 2. Correlate non-conformities (e.g. pareto, trend analysis, etc) 3. Apply Problem Solving (e.g. Containment action, root-cause analysis and defines corrective & preventive actions). Does the Supplier collect non-conformities from procured parts to delivered final products and Customer returns? - Procurement (Procured Parts) - Manufacturing process (including Foreing Object Damage, ...) - Customer (e.g. Customer Final Assembly Line, Airline returns, ...) Does the Supplier have a database to collect non-conformities? - Integrated database or Interaction of various databases - Data description - Data classification - Detection phase (e.g. incoming inspection, test phase, customer return … )

1 Does the Supplier perform regular data correlation for non-conformities? - Typology: § Pareto diagram § Top 10 § Trend Analysis § Common Causes - Frequency (e.g. weekly … )

2 Does the Supplier have a procedure describing the Problem Solving Methodology (e.g. PPS)?

- Containment & Curative actions - Multi-Functional Organisation - Method for root causes identification (e.g. 8D/9S, 5 Whys method, etc) § Trigger criteria based on: § Criteria defined by the Supplier (e.g. repeatable non-conformities, major non- conformities) § Trend § Each rejection at Customer Final Assembly Line - Corrective actions (including improvement of the detection) - Preventive actions - Actions follow-up (including action responsible, status, due date) - Measurement of effectiveness of the actions

Does the Supplier apply the Problem Solving in line with their procedure? When non-conformity is identified on product already delivered, does the Supplier put in place appropriate actions in line with "Product Quality Escape" process?

3 - Communication to Customer - Containment (parts affected) Does the Supplier manage properly the Concessions (e.g. e-Concessions tool applied,…)? In case of rework/repair, does the Supplier verify conformity to the Customer specification requirements? - Impact analysis vs. customer specification / Definition Dossier - Airworthiness and certification standards - Internal concession

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

B

C

D

Non-conformities Management is benchmark level including fully integrated database allowing continuous evaluation of data to prevent non-conformities. Current quality performance is above Customer target. Non-conformities data coming from Procurement, Manufacturing process, Delivery to Customer and In Service use are collected in an integrated or linked database. Data correlation is made and trends are identified and reviewed on a regular basis. Written procedure for non-conformities management is fully and effectively applied on the Product. Corrective and preventive actions (including checks of effectiveness) are well deployed & managed.

Non-conformities data coming from Procurement, Manufacturing process, and Delivery to Customer and In Service use are collected BUT NOT in an integrated or linked database. A manual data correlation is periodically done for all products. Written procedure for non-conformities Management is effectively applied on the Product, but is not complete or with minor inconsistencies. Corrective and preventive actions are well managed (even if effectiveness is not always checked).

Non-conformities data coming from Procurement, Manufacturing process, and Delivery to Customer and In Service use are not fully collected. Correlation of data is not systematically performed. Non-conformities Management process is not adequate (or relevant) or is not effectively applied on the Product. No non-conformities data collection. No non-conformities management process.

Comments:

7.2 Delays Management The objective of this brick is to verify that Supplier:

1. Collects and records delays (e.g. from procurement to delivery of final products and Customer returns) 2. Correlates delays (e.g. pareto, trend analysis, etc) 3. Apply Problem Solving (e.g. root-cause analysis and defines corrective & preventive actions). Does the Supplier collect delays from procured parts to delivered final products and Customer returns? - Procurement - Manufacturing process (including test/ inspection phases) - Customer Does the Supplier have a database to collect delays? - Integrated database or Interaction of various databases - Data description - Data classification - Detection phase

1 Does the Supplier perform regular data correlation for delays? - Typology: § Pareto diagram § Top 10 § Trend Analysis § Common Causes - Frequency (e.g. weekly … )

2 Does the Supplier have a procedure describing the Problem Solving Methodology (e.g. PPS)? - Curative actions - Multi-Functional Organisation - Method for root causes identification (e.g. 8D/9S, 5 Whys method, etc) § Trigger criteria based on: § Criteria defined by the Supplier (e.g. repeatable delays, major delays) § Trend § Late delivery to customer - Corrective actions (including improvement of the detection) - Preventive actions - Actions follow-up (including action responsible, status, due date) - Measurement of effectiveness of the actions

3 Does the Supplier apply the Problem Solving in line with their procedure?

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

B

C D

Delays Management is benchmark level including fully integrated database allowing continuous evaluation of data to prevent delays. Current delivery performance is above Customer target. Delays data coming from Procurement, Manufacturing process, and Delivery to Customer are collected in an integrated or linked database. Data correlation is made and trends are identified and reviewed on a regular basis. Written procedure for delays management is fully and effectively applied on the Product. Corrective and preventive actions (including checks of effectiveness) are well deployed & managed.

Delays data coming from Procurement, Manufacturing process, and Delivery to Customer are collected BUT NOT in an integrated or linked database. A manual data correlation is periodically done for all products. Written procedure for delays management is effectively applied on the Product, but is not complete or with minor inconsistencies. Corrective and preventive actions are well managed (even if effectiveness is not always checked).

Delay data coming from Procurement, Manufacturing process, and Delivery to Customer are not fully collected. Correlation of data is not systematically performed. Delays management process is not adequate (or relevant) or is not effectively applied on the Product. No delays data collection. No delays management process.

Comments:

7.3 Quality & Supply Chain Metrics The objective of this brick is to verify that Supplier:

1. Defines & measures relevant Quality & Supply Chain metrics (internal/customer) 2. Ensure consistency of metrics and objectives with customer expectations (e.g. Rejection Rate, On-time delivery) 3. Monitors the process performance through Quality & Supply Chain metrics Does the Supplier measure the Quality & Delivery performances of the products delivered to customers? - Rejection rates* - % of concessions - On-time delivery rates* * Airbus = R1/R2 for rejection, D1/D2 for delivery Does the Supplier define & measure Quality metrics all along the manufacturing process?

- First Pass Yield (%FPY) - Failures rate - % of scrap - Cp and Cpk Results - % of internal rework - Defect per Million (DPM) - Internal concessions

1 Does the Supplier define & measure Supply Chain metrics all along the manufacturing process?

- Customer demand - Inventory between process steps - For every process step: § Production rate § On Time Delivery § Lot size § Lead time § Number of resources § Available time § Utilisation § Efficiency

2

Does the Supplier define objectives for each metric? - Consistent with customer expectations Does the Supplier continously monitor metrics & define actions to meet objectives?

3 - Regularly analysed (e.g. identification of trends, root cause analysis, etc) - Action Plan implementation when objectives not met

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

Process to determine and monitor metrics is benchmark level and proven effective on the Product. Customer expectations are exceeded.

A

Metrics are identified, justified and continuously monitored. The objectives are consistent with customer objectives.

B

Metrics are identified and continuously monitored but not justified or the objectives are not consistent with customer objectives.

C

Metrics are identified but not monitored.

D

No metrics (e.g. On Time Delivery & Rejection rates, etc) in place.

Comments:

8.1 Preservation of Products The objective of this brick is to verify the:

1. Capability of the Supplier to preserve products during internal processing and delivery to the Customer Does the Supplier define and apply specific rules for the handling & storage of products?

- Special rules for products (from procured parts to final product): § Sensitive/Hazardous materials § Auxiliary materials (e.g. release agents, environmental products, etc) § Products in end of life § Products with a limited shelf time § Products stored in quarantine area (e.g. parts waiting for certificates/test reports, rejected parts, etc.) - Rules for handling & storage including: § Marking and labeling including safety warnings § Packaging (including products that need to stay in their original packaging until final use) § Display of expiry date § Limitation period of components (e.g. per technology) § Required environmental conditions including re-conditioning (e.g. humidity, temperature, ESD, ...) § Long-term storage (e.g.: Last Buy Order) § Rules to prevent deterioration § Inspection rules for end of life products before stocking (to avoid bad quality batches in stock) § Tests to be performed to guarantee quality and usage of end of life stocks § Segregation of products with different status (conform/ not conform, checked/ not checked, Part 145, … § Special rules for storage (e.g. FIFO,...) § Special rules for securing correct defrosting of raw materials (identified area)

1 Does the Supplier define and apply specific rules for the packaging of products?

- Robust & Secure (e.g. during transportation with shock or position sensors when applicable, etc) - Taking into account Customer requirements* § for Airbus: Purchasing Technical Specification / Functional Work Package Specification, AIMS / IPS Does the Supplier define and apply specific rules to prevent Foreign Object Damage  (FOD)?

- Corporate Company Policy to prevent, detect and eliminate FOD - Training dispositions to make operators and inspectors aware of FOD risks and consequences Does the Supplier define and apply specific rules for the transportation & delivery of products?

If applicable, does the Supplier have a list/record of customer material, parts, and tools?

- Check identification - Protection - Validity of the Customer property

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope and Basics in Selection and Series

A+

Rules for Preservations of product is at benchmark level and continuously improved (e.g. product is always in safe conditions without penalising the production work flow or the operators, reduced manual handling, etc).

A

Rules for preservation of product are defined and applied throughout the manufacturing process (from reception to delivery).

B

Rules for preservation of product are defined and applied throughout the manufacturing process (from reception to delivery), but some minor inconsistencies have been observed.

C

Rules for preservation of product are defined, but not adequate or not fully applied throughout the manufacturing process (from reception to delivery), leading to Major inconsistencies.

D

No rule for preservation of product (even on similar product)

Comments:

8.2 Series Production Readiness The objective of this brick is to:

1. Manufacturing process is in line with the targeted series production process (or deviations are under control) 2. Validation of series production process is ensured (e.g. First Arctile Inspection or equivalent) 3. Process for sub-tiers First Article Inspection (or equivalent) is in place Is the current manufacturing & inspection process in line with the targeted series production process?

1

- Covering processes, means, tools, Key contributing parties, etc - If not, deviations are identified, justified & the associated risks mitigated - Needs for series production process are identified, planned and associated risks mitigated Does the Supplier have a formal process to ensure the validation of the series production readiness?

- Covering Final product, sub-assembly levels and constituent parts - First Article Inspection - FAI (or equivalent) in line with: § ISO 9102 § Customer requirements* *For Airbus as defined in A1074 - First Article Inspection Requirements for Suppliers or BSF 013 *For Airbus Helicopters as defined in AH/AHD requirements in ER070 06-11 § At the earliest once the Qualification Process has been completed Does the Supplier (or Customer) perform & validates the First Article Inspection (or equivalent)?

2

- Covering final product level - Covering major sub assembly level - Covering constituent parts - Respect of restrictions identified during Qualification testing Does the Supplier release a validation report (such as First Article Inspection report or equivalent) ?

- Clear status of decision on series production readiness - Mentioning product definition, processes and means used - Refering to Purchasing Technical Specification (PTS) with current issue - Declaration of Design and Performance (DDP) signed by supplier and Customer before declaration of "Approved design data" in the Authorized Release Certificate (ARC) - Identifying Acceptance Test Report (ATR) - Considering Engineering Design Evolution Sheet (EDES) - Refering to its sub-tiers FAI reports

- Clear status of decision on series production readiness - Mentioning product definition, processes and means used - Refering to Purchasing Technical Specification (PTS) with current issue - Declaration of Design and Performance (DDP) signed by supplier and Customer before declaration of "Approved design data" in the Authorized Release Certificate (ARC) - Identifying Acceptance Test Report (ATR) - Considering Engineering Design Evolution Sheet (EDES) - Refering to its sub-tiers FAI reports

Does the supplier have a formal process (such as First Article Inspection) to ensure the series production readiness for its Sub-tiers?

3

Rank

- First Article Inspection - FAI (or equivalent) - FAI for first delivery of all purchased products - Rules for reports' documentation/archiving - Rules for responsibilities (check on FAI documentation completeness, etc.)

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

A

B

C

D

Series Production Readiness is benchmark level and proven effective on the Product. Customer expectations are exceeded (e.g. robust manufacturing quality gates, etc). The products are manufactured with series production process. Written procedure is fully and effectively applied to ensure the validation of the process (including sub-tiers) regarding series production. The products are not fully manufactured with series production process, but deviations/ change needs (or additional disposition) are identified, planned and associated risks are mitigated. Written procedure is effectively applied to ensure the validation of the process (including sub- tiers) regarding series production, but is not complete (e.g. FAI not passed or validation reports missing).

The products are not fully manufactured with series production process, and deviations/ change needs (or additional disposition) are not sufficiently identified, planned, associated risks are not mitigated. Written procedure to ensure the validation of the process (including sub-tier) regarding series production is not adequate. The validation of the process regarding series production is behind the schedule (e.g. FAI planning).

The products are not yet manufactured with series production process and deviations/ change needs (or additional disposition) are not identified, planned, associated risks are not mitigated. No process to ensure the validation regarding series production readiness.

Comments:

8.3 Traceability The objective of this brick is to verify that the Supplier ensures:

1. Traceability during manufacturing and testing / inspection steps 2. Traceability of a procured part with respect to final product (Upward and downward traceability) Does the Supplier ensure process traceablity (e.g. by traveller sheets) all along manufacturing and testing / inspection steps? - Per operation or grouped operations (consistent with routings): § Means & tools used per operation § Procedures & Instructions with revision issue § Software/ program with revision issue for means & tools - Traveller Sheets § Legible information § Operator / Inspector name (or ID reference) § All operators identified for operation multi-operators and interruptions § Signature or stamp on all operations § Date of operation § Outsourced operations § Manufacturing/ assembly lot breakdown/ split batch § Non-conformity/ scrap/ rework § Decision taken & validation after Non-conformity / rework § Link with concession, Design Quality Note, etc § History cards - Final quality control to ensure that all previous phases are stamped, quantities consistent and all discrepancies solved

1 Does the suppliers have a list of inspection stamps with names (or ID reference), allocation dates, allocation period and scope? Does the supplier archive elements related to process traceability? - In accordance with customer requirements* - In accordance with airworthiness Does the Supplier ensure upward and downward procured part traceablity? - From procured parts to final product delivery (upward) § From lot number, manufacturer's date code, etc. … to serial number, MSN, etc. - From final product delivery to procured parts (downward) § From serial number/MSN, etc. … to lot number, manufacturer's date code, etc. - Parts identification in accordance with the BoM/ drawings - Specific rules on high-risk components, procured parts (resulting from risk analysis) & complex components - Automatic system to ensure traceability - For military program, rules for NATO Stock Number (NSN) are applied

2

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope

A+

Traceability is benchmark level using a fully automated system (e.g. bar code scanners).

A

Traceability covering all manufacturing and testing / inspection process steps is ensured. Traceability is legible and systematically applied. Traceability upward and downward covers all products components, parts, sub-assemblies, etc. Traceability between a part and all final products is accurate.

B

Minor errors (and not recurrent) without any impact on traceability search. Traceability between a part and all final products is not accurate enough (greater range than defined in the Supplier process).

C

Recurrent / major errors or traceability not detailed enough with impact on traceability search.

D

Not possible to complete a traceability search.

Comments:

8.4 Industrial Change Management The objective of this brick is to:

1. Check the capability of the Supplier to manage Industrial Changes 2. Check the capability of the Supplier to manage transfer of Work/Production Does the Supplier have a procedure to manage any major industrial change? - Customer* is informed through a dedicated Notification Form prior to any major industrial change: § Change Notification Form (CNF), Change Manufacturing Evolution Sheet (CMES) or equivalent mentionning: § Product impacted § Change description § Rational for change § Risks identified and mitigation status § Associated schedule § for Airbus (Aerostructure/Material), no industrial change is implemented without  prior agreement from Airbus - Supplier's sub-tiers informed prior to any major industrial change (e.g. for outsources process steps) - Triggers defined: § Plant location or layout § Transfer of Work/Production § Transportation procedure (including Incoterms) § Major Enterprise Resources Planning (ERP) change § Top-level organisation and personal at key position § Major process changes § Major Specific Tooling changes (modification or movement) § Major suppliers changes (including subcontractors)

1 If Industrial Changes already perfomed, does the Supplier demonstrate proper application of the procedure? Does the Supplier record industrial process changes and associated validations? Does Supplier manage production re-start after long time break as major change? Does the Supplier have a specific procedure to control transfer of Work/Production? - Organisation - Transfer of Product Know-how

2

Does the Supplier have a production plan ensuring delivery on time, cost and quality to Customer during the transfer? - Risks identified - Different transfer of Work/Production Scenarios identified and analysed - Customer regularly informed about the progress of transfers

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope and Basics in Series

A+

Industrial Change and transfer of Work/Production management processes and implementation are at benchmark level. The Supplier executes all industrial change and transfer of Work/Production with no impact on Customer.

A

Procedure is defined. It is fully and effectively applied in case of industrial change and transfer of Work/Production.

B

Procedure is effectively applied in case of industrial change and transfer of Work/Production, but is not complete or with minor inconsistencies.

C D

Procedure is not adequate leading to major inconsistencies or has not been applied during an industrial change and transfer of Work/Production. No procedure but process in place. Industrial Change Management and transfer of Work/Production processes not in place (even on similar product).

Comments:

8.5 Product Configuration & Change Management The objective of this brick is to assess the existing Supplier evidence of his:

1. Product Configuration Management 2. Design Change Management Does the supplier have IT/IS accesses and Customer data under control? - Any risks related to the IT/IS access management identified (e.g. computer availability, resource know-how and training) (e.g. for Airbus: access to FTP / Doc Master / My Doc, etc) - Process for receiving, and managing Customer Configuration - Process & tools to communicate this configuration data tools to shop floor / production teams / its supply chain - Use of specific tools for the internal configuration management

1

Does the Supplier ensure that internal/external people working on the work package know how to access to different documents/data needed? - Common directory structure & naming policy - Common drawing architecture specific to the work package (e.g. Definition Dossier architecture, etc) Does the Supplier have a process for managing configuration? - Issue control of electronic data & configuration - Configuration management organisation implemented Does the Supplier have tools to receive and cascade definition / manufacturing / inspection dossier changes within his organisation? - Guarantee use of the latest definition? - Process to receive, analyse and answer change notifications Does the Supplier manages the incoming flow of modifications? - Considering specific product constraints: § high volume of changes (e.g. integration parts) § many stakeholders impacted (e.g. different Design Offices, etc) § number of interfaces impacted - Monitor the progress status of every incoming change requests (including KPI) - Monitor and achieve target Point of Embodiment

2

- Considering specific product constraints: § high volume of changes (e.g. integration parts) § many stakeholders impacted (e.g. different Design Offices, etc) § number of interfaces impacted - Monitor the progress status of every incoming change requests (including KPI) - Monitor and achieve target Point of Embodiment

2 Does the Supplier have a process to notify the Design office of any drawing changes required to allow manufacturing? (e.g DQN for Customers or equivalent for supplier)

Does the Supplier have a process to notify the Customer of specification change requirement? (RFA [Request For Amendment] / Coordination Memo) Does the Supplier manage modifications impacting its subtiers? - Process to communicate changes to his supply chain - Process to communicate change required by his supplier (internally / customer) - IT/IS tools to communicate, manage, track changes within the supply chain - Process to monitor and achieve target Point of Embodiment by the supply chain

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope and Basics in Selection and Series

A+

A

B

C

D

Product Configuration Management and Change Management processes and procedures are at benchmark level. Process automatically secures that changes are cascaded to and implemented by all involved actors (e.g. update of drawings triggers work order review, NC Programme checks, etc)

Product Configuration Management and Change Management procedures and processes are in place and their deployment have been demonstrated on Product and are effective. Cascade to all actors is secured and proven effective. Product Configuration Management and Change Management processes and procedures are in place. Application of those processes and procedures have been demonstrated on key industrial data, but with minor inconsistencies (eg. monitoring of the implementation not systematic, validation and cascade of information not systematically proven). Product Configuration Management and Change Management processes in place are incomplete and with major inconsistencies (eg. major steps are not defined or secured, availability of people not backed-up, cascade to key actors not secured). Product configuration is at risk and Changes implementation not secured. No Production Configuration management process in place. No Design Change management process in place. Even on similar product.

Comments:

8.6 Production of Elementary Parts The objective of this brick is to assess the capability of the supplier to: 1. Develop, Verify and validate automated programmes (Numerical Control (NC) machines, autoclaves, AFP/ATL, etc)

2. Use machines adapted to the metallic machining, forming and final operations 3. Use machines adapted to the composites manufacturing operations 4. Implement Interchangeability (ICY) Customer requirements What are the inputs taken into consideration for developement of automated programmes?

- Technical inputs: material constraints, process constraints, feedback of distortion results, capability to convert design data into data compatible with the machine (incl. licences), etc. - Definition of speed and feeds - milling strategy definition - Human inputs: error proof systems, ergonomics

1

Does the Supplier have a Procedure to validate programming? - Use of simulation tools (eg. Vericut) - Validation of new programme: specific trials, Checks Does the Supplier have an Automated programmes management process? - storage of programme / acces of programme (old programmes accessible by operator) - NC program dpt policy - Transmition of data to machines secured

Does the Supplier have a Milling Machines and cutting tools adapted to the complexity of the part? - Size of the machine, number of axis, tolerance capability - Control system to secure re-start after down-time - Loading NC programme into machine: manual or automatic (eg. barcode) - loading/pallet system appropriate for the elementary part - distortion measured during and/or after milling operations - Cutting tools appropriate (technology, capability demonstrated, max life definition, etc) and checked before use (error proof system)

Does the Supplier have a Straightening means/ machines adapted? - Size of the press, shotpeening tools; work bench size and configuration allow to operate without risk for the part - Distortion measurement process defined - Distortion stable (statistics)

2

Does the Supplier have a Fitting/Drilling/finishing machines and means adapted to the complexity of the part? - Operators ergonomics and safety - Parts correctly protected/preserved during final operations (zones identified, access under control) Does the Supplier have a Heat Treatment machines/means adapted to the part / process requirement? - Oven length, loading system, capability (max temperature) - Thermal mapping in serial production conditions (same cure cycle, same load, tested with empty tools,...) - Record/Control the curing parameters (deviation between theoretical values and the measured ones, vacuum,…) Does the Supplier have a Surface treatment & Paint machines/means adapted? - Make or Buy policy clear - Size of baths, specific tooling, handling concepts defined and establised - Painting booth size, capability - Process used: surface preparation, drying, flashing, pore filler, etc. Does the Supplier have a Composites Cutting & Kitting machines/means adapted? - Cutting machine size, nesting programmes, cutting tools maangement (life, cleaning, sharping) - Kitting: all means in place to ensure subsequent operations: storage, transport to another zone, etc..

Does the Supplier have a Composites Lay-up machines/means adapted? - ATL: size of the machine, zonal access with curing tools - Manual lay up: process to position plies used (marks on tooling, mylars, templates, laser projectors, …) - Manual lay up; ergonomics/safety of operators - Ancilary matrials: in accordance with customer requirements Does the Supplier have a Honeycomb Forming machines/means adapted? - Storage conditions of formed honeycomb: respecting requirement? Does the Supplier have a Composites Forming equipement/machine adapted to customer requirement? - Size, capability of the machine (temperature, vaccum?), technology used (Infra Red, etc.) Does the Supplier have a Composites Curing machines/means adapted to the technology?

3

- Curing machines size, capability (e.g. autoclave, oven, press, selfheated mould, …) - Handling related to these mahines - Control/Record of curing parameters - Thermal mapping of means in serial production conditions Does the Supplier have a Composites Demoulding means/devices adapted? - Principles of demoulding (manual, use of cranes, tooling device, etc.) - identification of parts: process in demouling phase - Transfer fo tooling datum to the part Does the Supplier have a Composites Trimming & Drilling machines/means and and cutting  tools adapted to the technology? - Size of the machine, technology used, specific tooling or flexible tools - Handling and positionning of the part in the machine - Cutting tools appropriate (max life, choice of the tool, storage and loading in machine, check points) Does the Supplier have a specific Rework process ? - Dedicated area (e.g. dedicated clean room/area in the clean room) - Means/machine adapted (e.g. frozen storage for raw materials, Vacuum/Pressure, portable Heating/curing device and its heat blankets, NDT system) - Repairs processes: repairs book or standard repairs book available and validated or qualified by customer Does the Supplier have Elementary Part Paint machines/means adapted? - Painting booth size, capability - Process used: surface preparation, drying, flashing, pore filler, etc. Does the Supplier manage the Product Interchangeability (ICY) according to Customer requirements? - Understanding of applicable ICY requirements for his work package - Understanding of Customer procedures for ICY (for Airbus: AP2027 Interchangeability Process & AP2149 Production and Inspection Tools for Contractually Interchangeable Airbus Proprietary Parts) - ICY for this WP demonstrated according Customer requirements (For Airbus: AP2027)

4 Does the Supplier manage Specific Interchangeability (ICY)? - Tooling concept covering ICY requirements (eg. tooling dedicated, specific devices for ICY checks, etc.) - Standard Operating Instructions for ICY controls and records: clear for operators / check last measurement IPCA+ Master Questionnaire FULL SCOPE - AIRBUS

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope and Basics in Series

A+

A

B

Capability to manufacture elementary parts is demonstrated and is at benchmark level. Constant improvement shown on manufacturing systems and detail parts technologies. Capability to manufacture elementary parts is secured. Machines and Equipments are appropriate and capable, and their control and deployment is demonstrated. Interchangeability (ICY) Customer requirements understood, demonstrated and achieved. Capability to manufacture elementary parts, but some minor risks have been observed (eg. straightening capability or capability to repair manufacturing special parts not fully demonstrated, machine missing but investiment ot mitigation clear for long term); Interchangeability (ICY) Customer requirements understood, demonstrated and almost achieved

C

D

Capability to manufacture elementary parts, but major risk has been observed (eg. Milling machine not adapted, autoclave size critical (thermal uniformity not demonstrated), straightening means not available, NC programming not robust); Interchangeability (ICY) Customer requirements not fully demonstrated (some steps missing) Capability to manufacture elementary parts is not demonstrated. Not even on similar product. (eg. no adequate autoclave available) ICY demonstration not available, neither started.

Comments:

8.7 Production of Assemblies The objective of this brick is to assess the capability of the supplier to: 1. Realise and control assembly operations

2. Shims application and management (liquid and sealant) 3. Define re-work process for assemblies 4. Implement Interchangeability (ICY) Customer requirements Does the Supplier have an Assembly Operations according to product complexity?

- Assembly process simulation and analysis: demonstration (e.g. via IT tool, via other method / not managed) - All necessary means well referenced in work order or documentation, well identified, clear instructions for operators covering: § specific tooling (drilling templates) and fixing tools (eg. pins, screws, jacks) § specific drilling/fastening tools (eg. drillers, Automatic drilling Units, etc.) § specific parameter (eg. torque, lubrification needed) § Precision prositionning eg. laser tracker § temporary fasteners well identified (customer impact) Does the Supplier have a Procedure to validate programming?

1

- Use of simulation tools (eg. Vericut) - Validation of new programme: specific trials, Checks Does the Supplier have an Automated programmes management process? - Storage of programme / access of programme (are old programmes accessible by operator) - NC program dpt policy - Transmition of data to machines secured Does the Supplier have a Fastening method process identified for the product?

- Fastening method proven - Cooling and lubricating processes and systems for the tools deployed Does the Supplier have an Oversize fasteners management? - Lists and stocks clear and regularly updated - Associated tools to install properly Does the Supplier have a process for Shims application and management? - Conditions of storage, conditions of preparation and subsequent records - Standard Operating Instructions for preparation and use of Shim (temperature range, ratio of mixtures, work life, etc.) - Prepartion of surface and means available - Liquid shim vs. solid shim: are thickness limits clear for operators, records of thickness available? - Liquid shim aplication process: cord of liquid or non-metallic spatula

2 Does the Supplier have a specific rework process for the product?

3

- Referential / Repairs catalogue / use of concession process - Process to authorise launch of repair and assembly release after rework Does the Supplier manage the Product Interchangeability (ICY) according to Customer requirements? - understanding of applicable ICY requirements for his work package - understanding of Customer procedures for ICY (for Airbus: AP2027 Interchangeability Process & AP2149 Production and Inspection Tools for Contractually Interchangeable Airbus Proprietary Parts) - ICY for this WP demonstrated according Customer requirements (For Airbus: AP2027)

4 Does the Supplier manage Specific Interchangeability (ICY)? - Tooling concept covering ICY requirements (eg. tooling dedicated, specific devices for ICY checks, etc.) - Standard Operating Instructions for ICY controls and records: clear for operators / check last measurement

Rank

Ranking guidelines for Full Scope and Basics in Series

A+

A

Capability to produce Assemblies is demonstrated and is benchmark level. Constant improvement shown on manufacturing systems, assembly technologies and detail parts technologies. Capability to produce Assemblies is secured. Assembly Tooling and Equipments are appropriate and capable, and their control and deployment is demonstrated. Interchangeability (ICY) Customer requirements understood, demonstrated and achieved.

B

Capability to produce Assemblies, but some minor risks have been observed (eg. fastening method not fully demonstrated, preparation of assembly operation not robust) Interchangeability (ICY) Customer requirements understood, demonstrated and almost achieved

C

Capability to produce Assemblies, but major risk has been observed (eg. automated assembly system not tested on similar product) Interchangeability (ICY) Customer requirements not fully demonstrated (some steps missing)

D

Comments:

Capability to produce Assemblies is not demonstrated. Not even on similar product. ICY demonstration not available, neither started.

Reference to Standards/Requirements 1.1 Industrial Process Flow Chart Manufacturing Ref. to International Standards: -

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.9.2 AI-GRESS-30221-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.9.2 AI-GRESS-L30203-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.10 AI-GRESS-L30203-C GRAMS issue C, § 2.10 AI-GRAMS-L500209-C GRAMS issue C_a1, § 2.10 AI-GRAMS-L500209-C_a1

1.2 Industrial Process Flow Chart Supply Chain Ref. to International Standards: -

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 4.3.1 & 4.3.2 AI-GRESS-40301-A GRESS issue B, §3.2.9.2 & §4.2 AI-GRESS-L30203-B, AI-GRESS-L40211-B GRESS issue C, §4.3.2 AI-GRESS-L40211-C GRAMS issue C, Module 4 § 3.2 AI-GRAMS-L400303-C

1.3 Manufacturing Plan Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 7.5.1 / EN 9100:2009 § 7.5.2 / EN 9100:2009 § 8.2 / EN 9100:2009 § 8.4

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRAMS Issue C, Module 5, Chapter 2.8, AI-GRAMS-L500207-C GRAMS Issue C_a1, Module 5, Chapter 2.8, AI-GRAMS-L500207-C_a1

1.4 Manufacturing & Inspection Dossier Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 7.5.1 EN 9100:2009 § 4.2.3 ; EN 9100:2009 § 7.1 ; EN 9100:2009 § 7.1.3

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.9.1 AI-GRESS-30220-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.9.1 AI-GRESS-30220-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.9 AI-GRESS-30220-B GRAMS issue C, Module 5 § 2.9 AI-GRAMS-L500208-C, Module 3.2 § 3.5 AI-GRAMS-L320307-C

1.5 Production Documentation Management Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 4.2.3 EN 9100:2009 § 4.2.3 ; § 7.3.7 ; § 7.4 ; § 7.5.1 ; § 7.5.2 ; § 7.5.3 ; § 7.5.5 ; § 8.2.4 ; 8.3 EASA Part 145, EASA Form 1

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.9.9 AI-GRESS-30229-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.9.9, § 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and §5.2.4. AI-GRESS-30229-B, AI-GRESS-50201-B, AI-GRESS-50202-B, AI- GRESS-50203-B, AI-GRESS-50204-B GRESS issue C, § 1.7.3, § 3.2.9, § 3.2.18, §5.2.1.1, 5.2.1.2, 5.2.1.3, 5.2.2.1, 5.2.2.2 AI-GRESS-11305-C, AI-GRESS-30220- B, AI-GRESS-30229-B, AI-GRESS-L50201-C, AI-GRESS-L50202-C, AI-GRESS-L50206-C, AI-GRESS-L50207-C, AI- GRESS-L50208-C, AI-GRESS-50209-C GRAMS issue C, Module 5 § 2.9, 3.1.1, 3.1.2 AI-GRAMS-L500208-C, AI-GRAMS-L500301-C to AI-GRAMS-L500310-C

2.1 Manufacturing & Distribution Rules Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 4.1 ; § 7.2 ; § 7.5.2 ; § 7.5.3 ; § 8.2.3 ; § 8.2.4

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 & 4.4 AI-GRESS-L40202-A, AI-GRESS-40210-A, AI-GRESS- 40303-A, AI-GRES-L40304-A, AI- GRESS-40404-A GRESS issue B, § 4.1 & 4.2 AI-GRESS-40218-B, AI-GRESS-40213-B, AI-GRESS-40214-B, AI-GRESS-40217-B, AI-GRESS40108-B, AI-GRESS-L40202-B GRESS issue C, § 4.4.1, 4.4.5 & 4.4.6 AI-GRESS-40213-B, AI-GRESS-40218-B, AI-GRESS-40108-C, AI-GRESS-40404-C GRAMS issue C, Module 4 § 4.1, 4.2 & 4.6 AI-GRAMS-400401-C; AI-GRAMS-400402-C;AI-GRAMS-L400407-C

2.2 Production Management System & Procurement triggering Mode Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 7.2 ; 7.4.2

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, §4.1 & 4.2 AI-GRESS-40101-A, AI-GRESS-40205-A, AI-GRESS-40206-A, AI-GRESS-40208-A, AI-GRESS-40209-A GRESS issue B, §4.2 AI-GRESS-40206-B GRESS issue C, §4.4.2 AI-GRESS-40206-B GRAMS issue C, Module 4 § 4.3 AI-GRAMS-400403-C GRESS issue A, §4.3 AI-GRESS-40302-A GRESS issue B, §4.2 AI-GRESS-40213-B GRESS issue C, §4.4.1 AI-GRESS-40213-B GRAMS issue C, Module 4 § 4.1 AI-GRAMS-400401-C

2.3 Capacity Management Ref. to International Standards: -

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 4.3 AI-GRESS-40302-A GRESS issue B, §4.2 AI-GRESS-40214-B, AI-GRESS-L40215-B GRESS issue C, §4.4.3 AI-GRESS-L40214-C, AI-GRESS-40215-C GRAMS issue C, Module 4 § 4.4 AI-GRAMS-L400404-C, AI-GRAMS-400405-C

3.1 Industrial Human Resource Management Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 6.1; § 6.2; 7.5.1

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.9.4 AI-GRESS-30224-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.9.4 AI-GRESS-30224-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.13 AI-GRESS-30224-B GRAMS issue C, Module 5 § 2.13 AI-GRAMS-500213-C GRAMS issue C_a1, Module 5 § 2.21 AI-GRAMS-500237-C_a1, AI-GRAMS-500238-C_a1

3.2 Facility Management: Premises & Means Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 6.3; § 6.4; § 7.5.1; § 8.3 EASA Part 21 & 145

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 4.3 AI-GRESS-40303-A GRESS issue B, § 4.2, AI-GRESS-L40212-B GRESS issue C, § 4.3.3 AI-GRESS-L40212-B GRESS issue C_a1, § 5.5 AI-GRESS-50501-C_a1 GRAMS issue C, Module 4 § 3.3 AI-GRAMS-L400304-C GRAMS issue C_a1, Module 5 § 3.3 AI-GRAMS-500312-C_a1 Refer to AIPI requirements

3.3 Qualification / Maintenance of Means & Tools and Calibration of Measurement Equipment

Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 7.5.1; § 7.5.1.3; § 7.6

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.9.4 AI-GRESS-30224-A GRESS issue B, §3.2.9.4 AI-GRESS-30237-B GRESS issue C, §3.2.13 AI-GRESS-30237-B GRAMS issue C, Module 5 § 2.13 AI-GRAMS-500214-C GRAMS issue C_a1, Module 5 § 2.13 AI-GRAMS-L500214-C_a1 A1094

4.1 Specific Tooling Development Ref. to International Standards: -

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRAMS issue C_a1, Module 5 § 2.13 AI-GRAMS-L500236-C_a1 A1094 A1095 -

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: A1094 A1095 GRAMS issue C, Module 5 § 2.13 AI-GRAMS-500215-C, GRAMS issue C_a1, Module 5 § 2.13 AI-GRAMS-L-500216-C_a1 FM0902097: Tool Register

5.1 Industrial Risk Analysis Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 7.1.2; § 7.4.1

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.5 AI-GRESS 30214-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.5, 3.2.6 & 4.2 AI-GRESS-L30205-B, AI-GRESS-L30206-B, AI-GRESS-40216-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.4 & 3.2.5, 4.5.1 & 4.5.3 AI-GRESS-L30205-C, AI-GRESS-L30205-C_a1, AI-GRESS-L30206-C, AI- GRESS-40216-C, AI-GRESS-40501-C GRESS issue C_a1, Module 2 ABD100 Part 1 Chap.3, § 3.2.5, 4.5.3 AI-GRESS-L30205-C_a1, AI-GRESS-L30206-C_a1, GRAMS issue C, Module 5 § 2.5, 2.6, Module 4 § 6.6 AI-GRAMS-L500205-C, AI-GRAMS-L500206-C, AI-GRAMS-400607-C GRAMS issue C_a1, Module 2 AI-GRAMS-L201101-C_a1, Module 5 § 2.5, 2.6 AI-GRAMS-L500205-C_a1, AI-GRAMS- L500206-C_a1

5.2 Key Characteristics and Process Capability Management Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 7.3.3; § 7.4.2; § 7.4.3; § 8.1; § 8.2.3; § 8.2.4; § 8.4; § 8.5 and EN 9103

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.9.4 AI-GRESS-30223-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.9.4 AI-GRESS-L30207-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.12 AI-GRESS-L30207-C GRESS issue C_a1, § 3.2.12 AI-GRESS-L30242-C_a1, AI-GRESS-L30243-C_a1, AI-GRESS-L30207-C_a1 GRAMS issue C, Module 2 § 4.2b AI-GRAMS-200403-C, Module 5 § 2.12 AI-GRAMS-L500212-C GRAMS issue C_a1, Module 5 § 2.12 AI-GRAMS-L500212-C_a1, AI-GRAMS-L500240-C_a1, AI-GRAMS-L500241-C_a1

5.3 Concurrent Engineering Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 7.1; § 7.1.1; § 7.3.1; § 7.5.1

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.4 AI-GRESS-30213-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.2, 3.2.3 & 4.1 AI-GRESS-L30213-B, AI-GRESS-L30202-B, AI-GRESS-L40204-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.2, 3.2.3 & 4.3.1 AI-GRESS-L30213-C, AI-GRESS-L30202-C, AI-GRESS-L40204-B GRAMS issue C, Module 5 § 2.4, 2.2, Module 4 § 3.1 AI-GRAMS-500204-C, AI-GRAMS-L500202-C, AI-GRAMS-L400301-C EN 9100:2009 § 4.1; § 7.1; § 7.1.2; § 7.4.3; § 7.5.1; § 7.5.4; § 7.6; § 8.2.4; § 8.3; § 8.4

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.9.8 AI-GRESS-30227-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.9.7 AI-GRESS-L30227-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.16 AI-GRESS-L30227-C GRESS issue C_a1, § 3.2.12, 3.2.20 AI-GRESS-L30241-C_a1, AI-GRESS-L30240-C_a1 GRAMS issue C, Module 5 § 2.16.1, 2.16.3, Module 3.1 § 3.5.1, Module 3.2 §4.1 AI-GRAMS-L500222-C, AI-GRAMS-L500225- C, AI-GRAMS-310315-C, AI-GRAMS-320403-C GRAMS issue C_a1, Module 5 § 2.12.1, 2.20, AI-GRAMS-L500239-C_a1, AI-GRAMS-L500235-C_a1

5.5 Environmental Stress Screening Ref. to International Standards: -

Ref. to Airbus Reqts GRESS issue A, § 3.2.9.6 AI-GRESS 30226-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.9.6 AI-GRESS L30210-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.15 AI-GRESS L30210-C

5.6 Obsolescence Management Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 4.2.3; § 4.2.4

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 1.8 AI-GRESS-10801-A, AI-GRESS-10802-A GRESS issue B, § 1.8 AI-GRESS-10801-B, AI-GRESS-10802-B, AI-GRESS-L10803-B, AI-GRESS-10804-B GRESS issue C, § 1.5 AI-GRESS-10801-C GRESS issue C_a1, § 5.1.3 AI-GRESS-50110-C_a1 GCP2000 issue 5 Chap 3.7.4;SSC/GC 2.1 & 2.2;SSC/SC 2 ABD0100.1.14 GRAMS issue C, Module 3 § 4.3, AI-GRAMS-310405-C GRAMS issue C_a1, Module 3 § 4.4.4, AI-GRAMS-310416-C_a1 Ref. to ADL - A1091

5.7 Industrial Continuous Improvement Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 4.1; § 8.5.3

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 4.1 & 4.3 AI-GRESS-40102-A, AI-GRESS-L40301-A, AI-GRES-40303-A, AI-GRES-L40304-A GRESS issue B, § 4.1 & 4.2 AI-GRESS-L40102-B, AI-GRESS-L40212-B GRESS issue C, § 4.3.3 & 4.3.4 AI-GRESS-L40212-B, AI-GRESS-L40102-B GRAMS issue C, Module 4 § 3.3, 3.4 AI-GRAMS-L400304-C, AI-GRAMS-L400305-C EN 9100:2009 § 7.1.2; § 7.4.1; § 7.4.2

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.5 AI-GRESS 30214-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.5, 3.2.6 & 4.2 AI-GRESS-L30205-B, AI-GRESS-L30206-B, AI-GRESS-40216-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.4 & 3.2.5, 4.5.1 & 4.5.3 AI-GRESS-L30205-C, AI-GRESS-L30206-C, AI-GRESS-40216-C, AI-GRESS40501-C GRESS issue C_a1, Module 4 §4.5.3 AI-GRESS-40216-C_a1 GRAMS issue C, Module 5 § 2.5, 2.6, Module 4 § 6.6 AI-GRAMS-L500205-C, AI-GRAMS-L500206-C, AI-GRAMS-400607-C GRAMS issue C_a1, Module 4 § 6.6 AI-GRAMS-400607-C_a1

6.2 Selection of Sub-tiers and Cascade of Requirements Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 7.4.1; § 7.4.2

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.7.1 & 4.4 AI-GRESS 30216-A, AI-GRESS-40401-A, AI-GRESS-40402-A, AI-GRESS-40403-A, AIGRESS-40404-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.7.1 & 4.3 AI-GRESS-L30204-B, AI-GRESS-L30216-B, AI-GRESS-L40305-B & AI-GRESS-L40403-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.7 & 4.5.1 & 4.5.2 AI-GRESS-L30204-C, AI-GRESS-L30216-B & AI-GRESS-L40403-B GRAMS issue C, Module 4 § 6.1, 6.3, 6.2, Module 3.1 §3.3, 3.5, Module 3.2 §3.1 AI-GRAMS-L400601-C, AI-GRAMS-L400604-C, AI-GRAMS-L400602-C & AI-GRAMS- L400603-C, AI-GRAMS-310305-C, AI-GRAMS-310317-C, AI-GRAMS-320301-C

6.3 Sub-tier Monitoring Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 0.2; § 7.4.1; § 7.4.2; § 7.4.3; § 8.5.2

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.7.2, 4.1 , 4.3 & 4.4 AI-GRESS 30217-A, AI-GRESS-40101-A, AI- GRESS-40103-A, AI-GRESS-40302-A; AI-GRESS-40401-A, AI-GRESS-40402-A, AI-GRESS-40403-A, AI-GRESS-40404-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.7.2 & 4.3 AI-GRESS-L30217-B, AI-GRESS-L40306-B, AI-GRESS-40307-B, AI-GRESS-40308-B, AI- GRESS-40404-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.7, 4.5.4, 4.5.5, 4.5.6 & 4.5.7 AI-GRESS-L30217-C, AI-GRESS-L40306-C, AI-GRESS-40307-B, AI- GRESS-40308-B GRAMS issue C, Module 4 § 6.4, 6.7, 6.8, 4.3 AI-GRAMS-L400605-C, AI-GRAMS-400606-C, AI-GRAMS-L400608-C, AI- GRAMS-400610-C, AI-GRAMS-400403-C

7.1 Non-conformities Management Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 7.5.1; § 8.2.1 § 8.2.4; § 8.3; § 8.4; § 8.5.2; § 8.5.3 and EN 9131

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.10 & 5.3 AI-GRESS-30230-A, AI-GRESS-30231-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.10 AI-GRESS-30231-B, AI-GRESS-L30211-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.19, § 5.1.4 & § 5.1.5 AI-GRESS-30231-C, AI-GRESS-L50104-C, AI-GRESS-L30211-B, AI-GRESS50101-C GRAMS issue C, Module 5 § 2.19, Module 3.1 §4.4.5, Module 3.2 §4.5.2 AI-GRAMS-500233-C, AI-GRAMS-L310415-C, AI- GRAMS-L320413-C, AI-GRAMS-500232-C, AI-GRAMS-500234-C EN 9100:2009 § 7.4.2; § 8.2.1 § 8.4; § 8.5.2; § 8.5.3

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 4.2 & 5.3 AI-GRESS-L40201-A, AI-GRESS-40202-A GRESS issue B, § 4.1 AI-GRESS-40106-B, AI-GRESS-L40107-B GRESS issue C, § 4.6, 5.1.4 & 5.1.5 AI-GRESS-40106-C, AI-GRESS-L40107-B, AI-GRESS-50101-C, AI-GRESS-L50104-C GRAMS issue C, Module 4 § 8, 7.3.1 AI-GRAMS-400802-C, AI-GRAMS-L400706-C, AI-GRAMS-L400801-C & AI-GRAMS- L400803-C

7.3 Quality & Supply Chain Metrics Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 0.2; § 4.1; § 7.5.1; § 8.1; § 8.2.1; § 8.2.4; § 8.4; § 8.5.1

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.9.3, 4.1 & 4.3 AI-GRESS 30222-A & 40102-A & 40301-A & 40304-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.9.3, 3.2.9.4 & 4.2 AI-GRESS L30222-B, AI-GRESS L30207-B, AI-GRESS L40211-B, AI-GRESS L40201- B, AI-GRESS 40214-B, AI-GRESS L40218-B, AI-GRESS-L40305-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.11, 4.3.2 & 5.1.5 AI-GRESS L30222-C, AI-GRESS L40211-C, AI-GRESS L50105-C, AI-GRESS 50106- B GRAMS issue C, Module 5 § 2.11, Module 4 § 3.2, 7.3.1 AI-GRAMS-L500211-C, AI-GRAMS-L400303-C, AI-GRAMS-L400705- C, AI-GRAMS-400703-C

8.1 Preservation of Products Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 7.5.5; § 8.3 EASA part 21 & 145

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.9.9 GRESS-30228-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.9.8 AI-GRESS-L30209-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.17 AI-GRESS-30209-C GRESS issue C_a1, § 5.5 AI-GRESS-50501-C_a1 GRAMS issue C, Module 5 § 2.18 AI-GRAMS-500229-C to AI-GRAMS-500231-C GRAMS issue C_a1, Module 5 § 3.3 AI-GRAMS-500312-C_a1 A1057

8.2 Series Production Readiness Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 7.4.3; § 7.5.1; § 7.5.1.1; § 7.5.1.2 and EN 9102

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A Chapter 3.2 AI-GRESS-30215-A GRESS issue B Chapter 3.2 AI-GRESS-L30232-B, AI-GRESS-L30215-B GRESS issue C Chapter 3.2.6 AI-GRESS-L30232-C, AI-GRESS-L30215-C GRESS issue C_a1 Chapter 3.2.6 AI-GRESS-L30232-C_a1 GRAMS issue C, Module 3.1 § 3.5, 3.8, Module 3.2 § 3.11, Module 5 § 2.9 AI-GRAMS-310314-C to AI-GRAMS-310320-C; AI-GRAMS-L310326-C; AI-GRAMS-L320318-C; AI-GRAMS- L500208-C A1074 FAI requirements for Suppliers EN 9100:2009 § 7.1.2; § 7.4.1; § 7.4.3; § 7.5.3; § 7.6

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.8 AI-GRESS 30219-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.8 AI-GRESS 30233-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.8 AI-GRESS 30233-B GRAMS issue C, Module 3.1 § 4.1 and Module 3.2 § 4.3 AI-GRAMS-310401-C to AI-GRAMS-310404-C AI-GRAMS-320404-C to AI-GRAMS-320407-C

8.4 Industrial Change Management Ref. to International Standards:

EN 9100:2009 § 4.1; § 4.2.3; § 7.1; § 7.1.2; § 7.1.4; § 7.4.2; § 7.5.1.2

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRESS issue A, § 3.2.9.5 and 4.2 AI-GRESS 30224-A, 30225-A and 40203-A GRESS issue B, § 3.2.8, 3.2.9.4 & 3.2.9.5 AI-GRESS 30234-B, AI-GRESS 30230-B, AI-GRESS 30235-B, AI-GRESS 30238-B & AI-GRESS L30225-B GRESS issue C, § 3.2.8 & 3.2.14 AI-GRESS 30234-B, AI-GRESS 30230-B, AI-GRESS 30235-B & AI-GRESS L30225-C GRESS issue C_a1, § 3.2.14 AI-GRESS L30225-C_a1, AI-GRESS L30238-C_a1, AI-GRESS L30239-C_a1 GRAMS issue C, Module 4 § 5.1, 5.2, Module 3.1 § 4.1 AI-GRAMS-400501-C to AI-GRAMS-400503-C, AI-GRAMS-310404-C

8.5 Product Configuration & Change Management Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 0.2; § 4.2.1; § 4.2.3; § 7.1.3; § 7.3.7; § 7.5.1; § 8.4; § 8.5.1

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: GRAMS issue C - Mod. 5.2.3 AP2078 - Change Management

8.6 Production of Elementary Parts Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 7.5.1; § 7.5.1.3

Ref. to Airbus Reqts Ref. to main applicable AIPIs: - AIPS04-yy-zzz (Heat treatment) - AIPS03-yy-zzz (Composite, non-structural) - AIPS02-yy-zzz (Surface treatment)

8.7 Production of Assemblies Ref. to International Standards: EN 9100:2009 § 7.1.2; § 7.5.1; § 7.5.1.3

Ref. to Airbus Reqts: Main applicable AIPIs: - AIPS01-yy-zzz (Joining technique) - AIPI01-02-017 (General assembly & installation of fasteners) - AIPI01-03-002 (Manual fastening of 2 or 4 start quick release fasteners) Abbreviations 8D/9S ABD AFP AOG ARC ATP cADL CER CMES CMM CNF D1, D2 DFM DFMEA DOA DOE DPM EASA ESD ESS FIFO FMEA FOD FPY FTP Gage R&R GSE HALT HR ICY IPS ISO IS IT JAA KC KPI LIFO ME MPS MRP MSA MSN

8 Do / 9 Steps AirBus Directive Automatic Fiber Placement AIMS Airbus Material Specification AIPI Airbus Process Instruction AIPS Airbus Process Specification AITM Airbus Test Method Aircraft On Ground Authorized Release Certificate ASR Airbus Supplier Requirement ATL Automatic Tape Laying Acceptance Test Procedure ATR Acceptance Test Report BoM Bill of Material Contractual Applicable Documentation List CAIR Constituent Assembly Inspection Report CCPU Certificat de Contrôle Production en Usine CDS Component Delivery Specifications Composite Engineering Requirement Communication of Manufacturing Evolution Sheet Coordinate Measuring Machine Change Notification Form CoC Certificate Of Conformity Cp/Cpk capability indexes On Time Delivery (Airbus definition) DDP Declaration of Design and Performance DFT Design For Test Design For Manufacturing Desgin Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Design Organisation Approval Design Of Experiment Defect per Million DT Destructive Testing DTC Design To Cost DQN Design Query Note European Aviation Safety Agency EDES Engineering Design Evolution Sheet ER Airbus Helicopters Requirement ERP Enterprise Resources Planning Electro Static Discharges Environmental Stress Screening FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAI First Article Inspection First In - First Out Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Foreign Object Damage First Pass Yield File Transfer Protocol Gage Repeatability & Reproducibility Ground Support Equipment Highly Accelerated Life Testing Human Resource Interchangeability Individual Product Specification International Organization for Standardization Information System Information Technology Joint Aviation Authorities Key Characteristic Key Performance Indicator Last In - First Out Manufacturing Engineering Master Production Schedule Material Requirement Planning Measurement System Analysis Manufacturer Serial Number

NADCAP

National Aerospace and Defense Contractors Accreditation Program

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

NC NDT NPI NSN OEE OEM OCAP OTD PAC PFMEA PMA POA PPM PPS PTS P/N PVCE R1, R2 RFA RFID RPN SI SLA SMART S/N SOI SOP SoW SPC

Numerical Control Non-Destructive Testing New Product Introduction NATO Stock Number Overall Equipment Efficiency Original Equipment Manufacturer Out of Control Action Plan On Time Delivery Purchase and Production Activity Control Process Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Part Manufacturer Authorization Production Organisation Approval Product and Process Monitoring Practical Problem Solving Purchasing Technical Specification Part number Procès Verbal de Contrôle d'Ensemble Rejection Rate (Airbus definition) Request For Approval Radio Frequency Identification Risk Priority Number Source Inspection Service Level Agreement Specific Measurable Achievable Realistic Time bound Serial number Standard Operating Instruction Sales Operation Planning Statement of Work Statistical Process Control

IPCA+ Master Questionnaire FULL SCOPE - AIRBUS TCCA

Transport Canada Civil Aviation Authorities

TPM

Total Productive Maintenance TQM

WIP

Total Quality Management VMI

Vendor Managed Inventory VSM

Value Stream Mapping

Work in process

WP

Work Package

Incoterms

INternational COmmercial TERMS

Definitions Specific Tooling includes but it is not limited to: Dies, press tools, router tools, mould tools and other detail tooling, drill jigs, assembly tools, machine fixtures, special cutters, NC, CNC and CMM data, inspection gauges, master tooling gauges, ICY acceptance gauges, factory equipment such as trolleys, cradles and lifting beams, handling, transportation and storage tooling.

Specific Tooling does not include: Machine tools (manual and CNC), robotic systems or general consumable tools e.g. drills, standard cutters, hand/air tools and powered tools and software tools.