5/1/2023 0 Comments Minitab type 1 gage studyWhere I can find an AAR form on Ford Covisint?įord is introducing an Aluminum F-150 Pick 'em Up Truckįord - Self-parking technology called Fully Assisted Parking AidĪdvise on R Chart with Ppk of 17. Statistical Software Calibration using Ford's "Sample Calibration File" Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topicsĭimensional Issues because of the last years FORD Recall Q1-Ford - Does anyone have any Q1 templates?ĭocument Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates What document to use to document Welding PV testing - Supplier to Fordįord Dimensional Tag Characteristics requirementsįord Motor Company new CSR document - May 2014 Is normal for FORD EU ask for the PSW every yearĪ couple CSR (Customer Specific Requirements) questions. If this target is achieved then the gauge would almost certainly pass the full 3 x 3 x 10 GRR. The reason for conducting a Type 1 GRR is to initially ‘prove out’ the functionality of the gauge and a target of <10 is set. IATF 16949 News Ford Motors Customer Specific Requirements Update - Nov 2020įord Q1 Manufacturing Site assessment resultįord Method - Position Capability with MMC ModifierĬapability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. This type of GRR should be the first conducted prior to the most common 3 x 3 x 10. Informational Ford Motor Company Customer Specific Requirements for IATF 16949:2016 - Ĭustomer and Company Specific Requirements Struggling with using the 5.6 version Ford Capacity Analysis Report IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standardįord Q1 MSA - Virtual Site Visit Hardwareįord Special Characteristics Communication and Agreement Form (SCCAF) provides production requirements? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) I'm now trying to "evolve" a suitable measure.įord MSA - Ford TYPE 1 study on a Marposs post process gauge I'm still trying to work out the best way of doing this that will satisfy Some faults are more serious, some faults are more obvious.ĭo I generate 10 different kappa studies (p136)? The manual doesn't cover such a situation explicitly. How do you assess the overall performance of inspection when you have different faults, with different levels of obviousness? It seems unreasonable to treat all faults as the same. The attribute study in the AIAG manual implicitly assumes you are only looking at a single fault. Nor does it cover all eventualities.įor example, I am currently working on an attribute study where I could have anything from 0 to 10 different possible faults on a single part. A requirement if you want to work in automotive manufacture? Probably.īut it's not an ISO standard. Auditors and companies seem to treat the AIAG manual as a standard.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |