Ppap Workbook

UPPAP SUPPLIER EVIDENCE PACKAGE
Record of Revisions
REVISION
Revision A, 04/12
NATURE OF CHANGE
Added the following Worksheets:
Record of Revisions Tab
Appendix 1)
Change Control Form 2
Appendix 2)
Capability Calculator
Appendix 3)
Gage R&R Short Form
Appendix 4)
Gage R&R Short Form with 2 replications
Appendix 5)
Gage R&R Long Form
Appendix 6)
Gage R&R Attribute Study Instruction Sheet
Appendix 7)
Gage R&R Attribute Study Form
All Appendexes hyperlinked from Cover & Index (Tab B)
1) Revised DFMEA and PFMEA worksheets to bring up to J1739

standard
2) Added Appendix 8, "FMEA Risk Tables" which were derived
from the J1739 standard
3) Modified Tab 9, Initial Process Studies. Added Column called
"Cpk Results" and provided conditional formatting for the column
called "Cpk Action"
4) Modified Tab 10- MSA with conditional formatting in column
labelled "Gage R&R Result"
5) Revised Tab 7, Process Control Plan, with a new template
Revision B, 12/10/2012 based on the AIAG format.
1) Revised DFMEA and PFMEA worksheets by adding "SO"
Revision C, 7/31/2013 columns for "Severity*Occurrence" risk calculation.
2) Revised nomenclature for DFMEA & PFMEA title blocks to go
Revision C, 7/31/2013 from "FMEA" to specifically DFMEA and PFMEA.
Workbook Revision Date: July 31, 2013
CURRENT REVISION
07/31/13, Revision C
AUTHOR OF CHANGE
TITLE
DIVISION
EMAIL
PHONE
Peter E. Teti
Technical FellowProduct Quality
Pratt & Whitney
peter.teti@pw.utc.com
(860) 557-4770
Peter E. Teti
Pratt & Whitney
(860) 557-4770
Pratt & Whitney
(860) 557-4770
Pratt & Whitney
(860) 557-4770
Peter E. Teti
Peter E. Teti

INSTRUCTION :
This document may be used to submit objective evidence of having met the requirements of ASQR-09.2
REVISION CONTROL INSTRUCTION:
Any iteration and/or resubmission of this evidence package shall be documented in the revision table below.
UPPAP INPUT SHEET
UTC DIVISION
Producer Name
Producer Code
Drawing Revision No.:
Producer Contact
Producer Contact
Phone Number
Producer Contact Email

Address
Part Number
Part Name
Engineering Change Level
Reason for
Submission
UPPAP Level
Level 3 - Form 1 with

complete supporting
data
UTC Member Focal Point

(MFP)
First Production
Delivery Date
UPPAP Initial Submission

Date
UTC Contact Phone

Number
UTC Contact E-Mail Address
Revision Control Table:

Revision Date
Submited by
Description
0
Drawing Revision:
Supplying Quality
Bushings
0
- On Time - With Zero
Defects
- Is Objective #1
Product Definition
Part Number:
Part Name:
###
UPPAP Spe
Act
EFP /Elements
ESA
Released Production Drawings

SMD/SPD/ SI sheets
Production PO and Demand Fulfillment
Production Verific
Required App
Special Process
Raw Material Ap
UPPAP Core Elements
DFMEA
Process Flow
Parts Marking A
Packaging, Pres
Approval
PFMEA
Formal Approv
Process Control Plan
UPPAP Review a
Process Readiness Study (PRS)

Initial Process Studies
Measurement System Analysis (MSA)
Dimensional Report
Appendices
20
Appendix 1 - Fo
UPPAP Special
Elements Activities
Production Verification Testing

Required Approvals
Special Processes & NDT

Raw Material Approval
Parts Marking Approval
Packaging, Preservation and Labeling
Approval
Formal Approval
UPPAP Review and Sign-Off

Appendices
Appendix 1 - Form 2 Change Notice
UPPAP EVIDENCE PACKAGE

(ASQR 09.2)
INSTRUCTIONS :
A PDF copy of the products drawings (for Design Responsible Producers - min. Title Block and associated
Word Drawing) shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file. First page only to be able to confirm the
product definition, revision, and that the drawing is fully released.
OBJECTIVE (ASQR-09.2) :
A copy of the products drawings shall be included in the UPPAP file. Design Responsible Party suppliers
shall include in the UPPAP file the "Note Form Drawings" and its member approved DESIGN RESPONSIBLE
PRODUCER drawings. Applicable internal and external specifications shall be readily available.
NOTE: Additional documentation may be required for Flight Safety Parts, refer to ASQR-09.1
UPPAP Checklist items:

1) Does producer have access to applicable UTC division drawings & specifications?
2) Is top level and sub-level (BOM) drawings and specifications released (i.e. signatures applied)?
3) Is producer working to correct drawing revisions, including all detail drawings (e.g. casting, forging, other
detail parts) as indicated on the purchase order?
4) Validate if any Critical to Quality (CTQ) features called out.
Index
Part Number: 0
Part Name:
Part Revision Level:
Please insert PDF copy of Drawing Title Block in space below.

(ASQR 09.2)
Workbook Revision: 04/12

(ASQR 09.2)

(ASQR 09.2)
INSTRUCTIONS :
A PDF copy of the technical specification shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file.
First page only to be able to confirm the product definition (P/N & Rev.) and release. The
following list shows the relevent documents for each division:
PWC: SPD, SMD, SI
PW: QAD, RCC, Service Bulletins, EA / LEA
HS: N/A
SAC:
OBJECTIVE (ASQR 09.2) :

The UPPAP file shall contain copies of all applicable production SPD/SMD and SI sheets,
consistent with the part revision level and reflected on the release production drawing.
A) Verify that any supplemental customer requirements (Purchase Order, Quality or
Engineering Notes/Documents) are incorporated into producer and subtier manufacturing
processes and documents.
B) Verify that the producer is working to the correct released revision of any supplemental
customer requirement documents as specified on the Purchase Order (e.g. Quality or
Engineering Notes/Documents, other specifications).
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
Dwg Revision Level:
Please insert PDF copy of your 1st technical

requirement page in space provided below.
INSTRUCTIONS :
A PDF copy of the Purchase Order shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file. First page only to be able
to confirm the product definition (P/N & Rev.)
A copy of the production product PO shall be included in the UPPAP file, along with the maximum expected
volume as communicated by the member.
A) Verify that the producer is working to a production purchase order?
B) Verify that the sub-tier PO documents flow down any UTC requirements per ASQR-01, ASQR-09.2 etc.
C) Does the UPPAP package have evidence that the producer knows the latest demand schedule and is
updating capacity and manufacturing plans accordingly.
D) Is there evidence that the producer flows down the latest demand schedule to subtier suppliers and is
updating subtier management plans accordingly.
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
Dwg Revision Level:
Please insert PDF copy of Purchase Order (P.O.) in space below.
INSTRUCTIONS :
The complete DFMEA or a summary of results (e.g. list of recommended act
included in the UPPAP evidence file.
Design Responsible Party Suppliers shall develop a design FMEA per SAE J
member specification.
A) Validate DFMEA exists for the part number and has established revision l
"living
document"
subject
to standardized
ongoing revision.
B) Validate
producer
use of
format (e.g. SAE J1739 or as agree
C) Validate that the producer understands and has incorporated all product d
performance,
producibility,
appearance,
environmental,
other
customer
D) Validate that
the producer
has received
any historicalany
quality
and
or lessoe
UTC
member
and
has
incorporated
that
learning
into
their
DFMEA.
E) Validate that the failure modes are be described in physical, technical and
Validate
thatrecommended
causes are described
in terms of
canhigh
be correct
F)
Validate
actions identified
forsomething
high RPN that
and/or
Severi
plan
with owners
& to
dates
exists.
G) Validate
linkage
PFMEA.
H) Identification of CTQ Features (i.e., CTQC, CTSC, FSC, KPC1, KPC2). E
characteristics
areuse
defined
that
support strategies
UTC defined
critical
to quality
feature
I)
Evidence of the
of risk
mitigation
in the
design
(e.g. early
wa
redundancies
and
mistake-proof
design
features).
J) Evidence of inspection methods, validation and testing aligned with DFME
Index
Design Failure Mode
This document contains no te
PFMEA Revision: Original

Product:
DFMEA Team:
Team Leader:
For instructions, slide cursor over column
Line
1
2
3
4
5
Component & Function
Requirements
Potential Failure
Mode
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
ults (e.g. list of recommended action items etc.) shall be
evelop a design FMEA per SAE J1739 or as defined by
er and has established revision level and that DFMEA is a

n. (e.g. SAE J1739 or as agreed to by UTC Member)
rmat
nd has incorporated all product design requirements (e.g.
vironmental,
other
customer
expectations)
any historicalany
quality
and
or lessons
learned data from the
rning
into
their
DFMEA.
scribed in physical, technical and measurable terms.
of
canhigh
be corrected
or controlled.
forsomething
high RPN that
and/or
Severity items
are completed, or a
C, CTSC, FSC, KPC1, KPC2). Ensure lower level key

Ctegies
defined
critical
to quality
features.
in the
design
(e.g. early
warning, control, system
tures).
on and testing aligned with DFMEA identified risks.
n Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (DFMEA) Worksheet
cument contains no technical data subject to the EAR or the ITAR
Potential Cause(s) of
Failure
Occurrence
Classification
Potential Effect(s) of
Failure
Severity
slide cursor over column headings. For instructions to name and save the file, slide cursor over this cell.
10
10
6
8
6
8
4
9
2
9
2
1
4
MEA) Worksheet
he ITAR
001
DFMEA Number:
DFMEA Date: (Original)
(Revised)
RPN
SD
SO
Current Process Controls

(Prevention)
Current
Process
Controls
(Detection)
Detection
ve the file, slide cursor over this cell.
24
12
12
72
18
24
36
12
18
150
30
30
24
12
40
20
36
12
18
150
30
30
14
14
80
40
15
15
150
30
30
120
24
30
72
18
24
180
30
36
36
12
18
24
12
12
90
30
18
84
42
12
84
42
12
24
12
12
24
12
12
256
32
32
336
48
42
60
12
20
20
20
10
210
42
30
18
18
192
48
32
72
18
24
240
48
30
288
48
36
240
48
30
240
48
30
36
12
18
90
30
18
160
32
20
192
48
32
162
81
18
16
162
81
18
81
81
001
-
RPN
SD
Detection
Occurrence
Recommended Action
Severity
Recommended Actions and Predicted Risk
210
42
150
30
Largest RPN Value
336
Largest SD Value
SO
Optional - For Business Case

Action Price Tag
Action Res
0
0
0
0
0
Non-recurring Cost
Responsib
Champio
ility and
n
Action
Recurring Cost
Target
(Approval
Taken
Completio
Authority)
n Date
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81
Largest SO Value
42
RPN
Detection
Occurrence
Results
Severity
iness Case
Action Results Achieved
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Process Flow
INSTRUCTIONS :
A PDF copy of the flow chart of the part shall be included in the UPPAP file. Note: A section of the flow chart may be used
as sample evidence where space is inadequate for the entire process.
The UPPAP file shall contain a copy of the process flow diagram that clearly describes the production process steps and
sequences from receiving to shipment.
- Standard flowchart symbols shall be used.
- Alternate process paths/formal rework loops should be documented as part of the main flow diagram.
- Subsequent process changes shall be documented in the flow diagram.
NOTE 1: Process flow diagrams for families of similar parts are acceptable if the new parts have been reviewed for
identical processing.
NOTE 2: The supplier should consider the maximum expected volume as communicated by the member to define the
proposed Process Flow.
NOTE 3: Adding characteristics produced at each step of the process flow, greatly facilitates the development of the
PFMEA and control plan.
A) Validate that the process map exists for the actual production manufacturing process being used, has an established
revision level, and that the process map is a "living document" subject to ongoing revision.
B) Validate producer uses standard flow diagram format including standard flowchart symbols, alternate formal and/or
rework paths, wip storage, and covering all steps from receiving to inspection/testing and shipping.
C) Assure alignment with PFMEA and control plan.
D) Assure flowmap accounts for all outside operations and potential sources of variation.
E) Assure flowmap steps identify where CTQ features are produced.
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
Dwg. Revision Level:
12/30/1899
0
Please insert PDF copy of Process Flowchart in space below.
313983981.xlsx
Page 24 of 80
Process Flow
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
313983981.xlsx
Page 25 of 80
12/30/1899
0
INSTRUCTIONS :
The complete PFMEA shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file. Where necessary for proprietary items, a summ
the analysis and results shall be included.
The supplier shall develop a process FMEA per SAE J1739.
NOTE 1: A single process FMEA may be developed for a family of similar parts or materials provided that a formal re
A) Validate PFMEA exists for the part number and has established revision level and that PFMEA is a "living docume
B) Validate producer use of standardized format (e.g. SAE J1739 or as agreed to by UTC Member)
C) Where applicable, validate linkage to either the UTC Member or producer DFMEA.
D) Validate that the producer has collected any historical quality and/or lessons learned data for the part and/or part
PFMEA.
E) Verify that the PFMEA addresses all steps, operations and sources of variation identified in the process flow map
address
all that
significant
risksmodes are be described in physical, technical and measurable terms. Validate that cause
F) Validate
the failure
corrected
controlled.
G)
Validateorrecommended
actions identified for high RPN and high Severity score items are completed, or a plan wit
H) Validate linkage to control plan.
I) Identification of Key Characteristics (i.e., CTQC, CTSC, FSC, KPC1, KPC2, KPCM). Ensure lower level Key Char
critical
to quality
features.
J) Evidence
of the
use of risk mitigation strategies in the process (e.g. early warning, control, system redundancies a
K) Evidence of inspection methods, validation and testing aligned with PFMEA identified risks.
Index
Process Failure Mode a
This document contains no techn
PFMEA Revision: Original

Process:
PFMEA Team:
Team Leader:
For instructions, slide cursor over column headi

Line
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Process Step No. &

Process Name
Requirements
Potential Failure
Mode
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
ssary for proprietary items, a summary of
materials provided that a formal review of
and that PFMEA is a "living document" subject to ongoing revision.

by UTC Member)
MEA.
arned data for the part and/or part family and has incorporated that learning into their
n identified in the process flow map - scope/depth of PFMEA should be adequate to
asurable terms. Validate that causes are described in terms of something that can be
e items are completed, or a plan with owners & dates exists.
CM). Ensure lower level Key Characteristics are defined that support UTC defined
ng, control, system redundancies and mistake-proof methods).
entified risks.
ss Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) Worksheet
ument contains no technical data subject to the EAR or the ITAR

PFMEA Number:
PFMEA Date: (Original)
(Revised)
Potential
Cause(s) of
Failure
Occurrence
Classification
Potential
Effect(s) of
Failure
Severity
e cursor over column headings. For instructions to name and save the file, slide cursor over this cell.
Current Process Controls

(Prevention)
10
10
6
8
6
8
4
9
2
9
2
1
4
sheet
001
-
SD
SO
24
12
12
72
18
24
36
12
18
150
30
30
24
12
40
20
36
12
18
Recommended
Action
Severity
RPN
Current Process
Controls
(Detection)
Recommended Actions and Pred

Detection
over this cell.
150
30
30
14
14
80
40
15
15
150
30
30
120
24
30
72
18
24
180
30
36
36
12
18
24
12
12
90
30
18
84
42
12
84
42
12
24
12
12
24
12
12
256
32
32
336
48
42
60
12
20
20
20
10
210
42
30
18
18
192
48
32
72
18
24
240
48
30
288
48
36
240
48
30
240
48
30
36
12
18
90
30
18
160
32
20
192
48
32
162
81
18
16
162
81
18
81
81
Largest RPN Value
Optiona
Action Price Tag
RPN
SD
SO
Detection
Occurrence
ended Actions and Predicted Risk
Non-recurring
Cost
Recurring Cost
210
42
30
150
30
30
336
Largest SD Value
81
Largest SO Value
42
Optional - For Business Case
Action
Results
Taken
Detection
Responsibility and
Target Completion
Date
Occurrence
Champion
(Approval
Authority)
Action Results Achieved

Severity
Action Price Tag
RPN
eved
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CONTROL PLAN
Page: 39 of 80
INSTRUCTIONS :
A complete Process Control Plan shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file.
OBJECTIVE (ASQR
09.2) :
The supplier shall develop a stand-alone Process Control Plan for the process being submitted, per UTCQR-09.1 and also include a
comprehensive reaction plan. The producer may define different control plans for development, pre-production and full production phases
in order to adjust for increasing process maturity.
If sampling is employed for quality acceptance of characteristics, the frequencies established in the control plan shall be aligned with
ASQR-20.1 requirements.
UPPAP CHECKLIST ITEMS:
Reaction Plans shall define actions for nonconforming conditions/out of control situations (e.g., containment, customer notification, stop
theVerify
process,
contact the
engineer,
etc.).
A)
requirements
of manufacturing
UTCQR-09.1 are
followed.
NOTE 1: Control Plans for part families are acceptable if the additional parts have been reviewed for
B) Ensure that the Control Plan includes controls formanufacturing
all UTC Member
defined
KCs and any producer identified KCs from the PFMEA.
process
commonality.
NOTE 2: Reaction Plans should define actions to be taken for nonconforming conditions and/or out of control situations (e.g.,
C) Ensure that the Control
Plan
includes
controls
for any high
and high
RPN
modes identified
onetc.).
the PFMEA (e.g. early
containment, customer
notification,
stop severity
the process,
contact
thefailure
manufacturing
engineer,
warning, control, system redundancies
and
mistake-proof
methods).may be required for Flight Safety Parts.
NOTE 3:
Additional
documentation
D)Key Process Inputs, Settings, Control Methods, and SPC chart type are defined for each critical operation.
E) Control Plan accounts for outside/sub-tier processes.
F) Verify reaction plans exist for nonconforming condition/out of control situations (e.g. containment, customer notification, recovery,
communication, stop the process)
G) Verify that the listed finish dimensional and tolerances matches the drawing.
H) Verify that defined inspection frequencies meet ASQR-20.1 requirements.
Index
PROCESS CONTROL PLAN
Page _____ of _____
DATE ORIGINAL
CUSTOMER ENGINEERING
APPROVAL/DATE (if required)
CONTROL PLAN NUMBER
DATE REVISED
CUSTOMER QUALITY
APPROVAL/DATE (if required)
PART NUMBER/
LATEST CHANGE LEVEL
PREPARED BY
OTHER APPROVAL/DATE
(if required)
PART NAME/
DESCRIPTION
APPROVED BY
OTHER APPROVAL/DATE
(if required)
PROTOTYPE
PRE-SERIES
PRODUCTION
DRAWING NUMBER
DRAWING REV
OTHER APPROVAL/DATE
(if required)
SUPPLIER/PLANT SITE
VENDOR CODE
KEY CONTACT/PHONE/EMAIL
PART/
PROCESS NAME/
MACHINE,DEVICE
PROCESS
OPERATION
JIG,TOOLS
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
FOR MFG
CHARACTERISTICS
SPECIAL
CHAR.
NO.
PRODUCT FEATURES
(KPOs)
PROCESS VARIABLES
(KPIs)
METHOD
PRODUCT/PROCESS
SPECIFICATION
TOLERANCE
EVALUATION
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT SIZE
TECHNIQUE
FREQ.
CONTROL
REACTION
METHOD
PLAN
INSTRUCTIONS :
A PDF copy of a Production Readiness Study should be included.
E.g. PWC 10285, and/or PW Manufacturing or Repair Process Review Approval - Include summary of
results (e.g score, action items etc.)
The UPPAP file shall contain a copy of the Process Readiness Study (PRS) performed on the production
process and consider as a minimum, the production readiness level of:
a. Manufacturing process steady state tools, fixtures, manufacturing equipment and gages.
b. Operation work instructions.
c. Process control methods.
d. Gage suitability (i.e., discrimination, applicability).
e. Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) program.
f. All levels of their supply chain.
g. Prevention, detection and removal of foreign objects.
A PRS may be performed with a member representative or as a self evaluation based on member
guidelines. However, a PRS self evaluation must be reviewed by the MFP.

Verify that the PRS includes the following elements and that the results of the study show that for all elements, the producer is
ready for production.
A) Production Tooling, fixtures, manufacturing equipment
B) Operation Work Instructions
C) Process Control Methods
D) Gage Suitability
E) Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) program
F) Sub-tier Supplier flowdown
G) Capacity Analysis
H) FOD prevention and controls
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:

0
Process Readiness
Study Cover Sheet
###
0
Final sheet with

action plan
INSTRUCTIONS :
A complete listing of all KC's (Customer supplied and Supplier identified) shall be listed into the table with all appropriate required information.
In addition a complete sample SPC Control Chart of one KC shall be added to demonstrate the result.
The UPPAP file shall include documented evidence that initial process studies have been conducted on twenty-five (25) parts all product & process KCs.
NOTE: Provided that the same tooling and equipment intended for production is used, data collected from development or pre-production parts can be considered.
Acceptance Criteria:
The supplier shall use the following as acceptance criteria for evaluating initial process study results.
Results
Cpk 1.33
Interpretation
The process currently meets requirements.
After approval, begin volume production and follow Control Plan.
The process is currently acceptable, but may require some improvement.

1.00 Cpk < 1.33 Contact the MFP and review results of the study.
This shall require changes to the Control Plan, if not improved prior to start of volume production.
Cpk < 1.00
The process does not currently meet the acceptance criteria.

Contact the appropriate member representative for a review of the
studys results.
Process capability indices shall only be calculated after the process is determined to be stable.
NOTE: A normality test should be used when standard formulas for Cp/Cpk calculations are used.
Variable data shall be used wherever feasible. If using attribute data, DPPM calculations can be used (refer to UTCQR-09.1) to achieve identified results.

A) Evidence that SPC Control Charts and process capability indices are completed for 25 pcs, illustrating evidence of variation for all UTC Member and producer identified KCs.
B) Supplier action plan(s) in place to address unacceptable Process Capability results for all UTC defined or producer defined KCs.
C) Verify that the producer has ensured that any UTC member or producer identified KCs manufactured by a subtier supplier meet UTCQR-09.1 requirements.
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
Production Part Approval process

Initial Process Study
GAP CLOSURE PLAN
Item #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Feature Description
Shaft inside diameter
Shaft keyway width
Shaft outside diameter
Example of KPCd or KPCm
Customer or
Supplier
Indentified KC
CTQ Type
Cpk Result
Customer
Customer
Supplier
KPC2
KPC1
KPC2
0.75
1.45
1.24
Cpk Action
< 1.0 - Action Plan Required
>= 1.33 - No action required
Between 1.0 and 1.32 - Caution
Comment and/or
Action Item to
Close Gap
Target
Completion
Date
Responsibility
Change to harder tool
Dec. 15, 2012
Joe Capozzi
Example of KPCd or KPCm
INSTRUCTIONS :
A listing of all gage R&R shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file.
This table should be completed for each gage R&R.
a. The UPPAP shall contain copies of the gage Repeatability & Reproducibility (R&R) studies conducted on all instruments used for measuring KCs.
b. Gage R&R studies shall have a Precision to Tolerance (P/T) ratio 20%. When not achieved, a corrective action plan shall be agreed to, with the MFP.
c: The UPPAP file shall contain copies of the gage inspection and try-out reports for all special gaging (e.g., supplier designed, etc.).
identified in bias, stability, linearity, repeatability, or discrimination they should be addressed.
NOTE: When deficiencies are

A) Producer can demonstrate Gage Capability Studies completed for all UTC member and producer identified KC.
B) Gage resolution specified meeting 10:1 rule-of-thumb.
C) Supplier action plan(s) in place to address unacceptable Gage Capability results for UTC defined CTQ Features (i.e., > 20% of tolerance requires corrective action plan).
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
Dwg Revision Level:
12/30/1899
0
MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE FOR PPAP

GAP CLOSURE PLAN
Item #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Feature Description
Inside Diameter
Slot width
CTQ Type
KPC2
KPC2
Gage R&R Type

Gage R&R Short Form Study
Gage R&R Long-Form Study
Gage R&R
Result
Comment and/or
Action Item to Close Gap
62.0% Provide better gage for Operators

10.0%
Target
Completion Date
Responsibility
2/15/2013
M. Bonnell
Correlation
CORRELATION
GAUGE NO
Dimensions taken
Dimensions taken
with the try out gauge with the approved method

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Range
totals
means
unit of measure 1=
tolerance
correlation
10 % maximum
do not accept
Range
10 % maximum
do not accept
Process Monitoring
Pratt & Whitney Canada
P&WC 5665-1 (10-97)
GR&R
MEASUREMENT VARIABILITY WORKSHEET
GAUGE
CALIBRATION DATE
CALIBRATED BY
GAUGE NO
CODING ZERO
UNIT OF MEASURE
TOLERANCE
DEPARTMENT : Machined Parts

OPER
A:
Sample REPLICATIONS
number
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
Means
X1
X2
Sheet Metal
Heat Treatment
B:
REPLICATIONS
1
2
Assembly & Test
X3
RA
X1
X2
X3
XB=
TEST FOR STATISTICAL

CONTROL OF RANGES
Dept.:
C:
REPLICATIONS
1
2
XA=
R1=
PART NO
PART NAME
CHARACTERISTIC
SPECIFICATION
GRADUATION
EVAL'S NAME
DATE
1=
===> (
PAGE #1
RB
X1
X2
X3
XC=
CONTROL
Range max =
UCLR =
3.268
CAPABILITY
(MEASUREMENT VARIATION)
REPEATABILITY
REPRODUCEABILITY
(GAUGE VARIATION)
(BETWEEN OPERATOR VARIATION)
1.128
Smv=
6 Smv=
Sgv=
0.0000
6 Sgv=
Sov=
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
6 Sov=
1.908
Tolerance
Capability %
Tolerance
Capability %
Tolerance
Capability % #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
Process Monitoring
P&WC 5665-2 (10-97)
GR&R
Tolerance acceptable for Capability under 20%:
Process Monitoring
Inches
P&WC 5665-2 (10-97)
GR&R
PAGE #1
RC
REPRODUCEABILITY
(BETWEEN OPERATOR VARIATION)
Process Monitoring
P&WC 5665-2 (10-97)
GR&R
Process Monitoring
P&WC 5665-2 (10-97)
Correc_Action
Date:
Instrument summary
Gauge No :
Indicator:
Digital:
Yes
Yes
No
No
Gauge type :
Graduation:
Ex:.00001,.00005,.0001,.001
Part description
Part No. :
Part name :
Characteristic :
Specification:
Instrument Capability
Repeatability
Reproducteability
Classification of the measurement error :
Mechanism
Process Monitoring
Indicator
All
Corrective action
P&WC 5665-3 (10-97)
MEASUREMENT VARIABILITY WORKSHEET

GAGE
CALIBRATION DATE
CALIBRATED BY
GAGE NO
CODING ZERO
UNIT OF MEASURE
TOLERANCE
OPER
A:
Sample REPLICATIONS
number
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
Means
X1
X2
XA=
XA=
PART NO
PART NAME
CHARACTERISTIC
SPECIFICATION
GRADUATION
EVAL'S NAME
DATE
1=
===> (
)
3
X3
0.0
0.00
RA
10
X1+X2+X3
REPLICATIONS
B:
REPLICATIONS
1
2
X1
XB=
###
PAGE #1
XB=
X2
X3
X1+X2+X3
REPLICATIONS
###
0.0
0.00
RB
C:
REPLICATIONS
1
2
X1
XC=
XC=
TEST FOR STATISTICAL CONTROL OF RANGES

R1= RA+RB+RC
OPERATORS
0.00
D4*R1
2.574
###
X3
0.0
0.00
RC
X1+X2+X3
REPLICATIONS
###
CONTROL
###
Range max =
0.00
UCLR =
X2
0.00
=
Le systme de mesure est stable
(USE D4 FOR n= NUMBER OF REPLICATIONS)
FACTORS
n
2
3
D4
3.268
2.574
d2
1.128
1.693
d0
1.410
1.908
REPEATABILITY (GAGE VARIATION)

Sgv= R1d2
###
PAGE #2
1.693
###
(USE d2 FOR n= NUMBER OF REPLICATIONS)
PCT OF TOLERANCE CONSUMED BY GAGE

100*6*Sgv
TOLERANCE
REPRODUCEABILITY (BETWEEN OPERATOR VARIATION)

R2 = Xlargest of ABC - Xsmallest of ABC
R2 =
Sov= R2d0
###
###
1.908
###
###
(USE d0 FOR n= NUMBER OF OPERATORS)
PCT OF TOLERANCE CONSUMED BY OPERATOR VARIATIONS

100*6*Sov
TOLERANCE
COMBINED REPRODUCEABILITY & REPEATABILITY (MEASUREMENT VARIATION)
Smv = (Sov + Sgv)
PCT OF TOLERANCE CONSUMED BY MEASUREMENT VARIABILITY

100*6*Smv
TOLERANCE
FACTORS
n
2
3
D4
3.268
2.574
d2
1.128
1.693
d0
1.410
1.908
CMM Gauge R&R on TP & Dia. (NoBonus)

Feature Information
CMM Type:
CMM S/N:
Part Number:
Operation:
Sequence:
Notes:
LK
7462-02
30C4745-01
1300
25
Characteristic Type:
TP Tolerance:
FOS Dia. Tolerance:
Date:
Repetitions:
True Position
0.0010
0.0005
31-Oct-2005
10
Calculations
X Value
Y Value
Resultant
FOS Diameter
Mean
0.000002
0.000015
-0.000064
0.000021
0.000066
0.000019
2.329945
0.000016
TP Tolerance Radius
(TR)
Diameter 6
FOS Diameter
Tolerance
0.0005
0.000095
0.0005
Std. Deviation ()
Analysis
Max
6 (x,y)
0.000124
TP Gauging
Radius (Gr)
0.000062
True Position GR&R - Area Method
FOS Diameter GR&R
1.54%
18.97%
True Position
CMM GR&R Analysis
(TP|Dia .0005)
0.0006
0.0004
True Position GR&R (Area)
1.54%
0.0002
0.0000
Tolerance
Diameter
(TR)
-0.0002
GR&R
Diameter
(Gr)
Actuals
Feature (Diameter GR&R)
-0.0004
18.97%
-0.0006
-0.0006
Data Points: 10
-0.0004
-0.0002
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0.0000
Tolerance
Diameter
(TR)
-0.0002
GR&R
Diameter
(Gr)
Actuals
-0.0004
-0.0006
-0.0006
Data Points: 10
-0.0004
-0.0002
0.0000
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
CMM Gauge R&R on 1 Sided Tolerance

Feature Information
CMM Type:
CMM S/N:
Part Number:
Operation:
Sequence:
Notes:
LK
7462-02
30C4547-01
1300
25
USL:
LSL: (ZERO)
Date:
Repetitions:
Flatness
0.0020
0.0000
31-Oct-2005
10
Calculations
Data
Moving Range
Tolerance
Mean
Std. Deviation ()
0.000215
0.000024
0.000033
0.000025
0.000145
0.0020
1 Sided CMM GR&R

7.25%
CMM GR&R Individuals Chart
0.00250
0.00200
Actuals
USL/LB
LB
+/- 3
Sigma
-3 sigma
X Bar
0.00150
0.00100
0.00050
0.00000
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
CMM GR&R Moving Range Chart

0.00012
0.00010
0.00008
Moving
Range
0.00006
UCL MR
MR Average
0.00004
NOTE: Only first

9 points valid
0.00002
0.00000
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
CMM Gauge R&R on 2 Sided Tolerance

Feature Information
CMM Type:
CMM S/N:
Part Number:
Operation:
Sequence:
Notes:
LK
7462-02
30C4745-01
1300
20
USL:
LSL:
Date:
Repetitions:
Dimension
0.6533
0.6513
31-Oct-2005
10
Calculations
Data
Moving Range
Tolerance
Mean
Std. Deviation ()
0.652280
0.000092
0.000122
0.000067
0.000551
0.0020
2 Sided CMM GR&R

27.57%
CMM GR&R Individuals Chart
0.65350
0.65300
0.65250
Actuals
USL/LSL
LB
+/- 3
Sigma
-3 sigma
0.65200
0.65150
0.65100
0.65050
0.65000
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26

0.00045
0.00040
0.00035
0.00030
0.00025
Moving
Range
UCL MR
0.00020
0.00015
0.00010
0.00005
MR Average
NOTE: Only first

9 points valid

0.00045
0.00040
0.00035
0.00030
Moving
Range
0.00025
UCL MR
0.00020
MR Average
0.00015
0.00010
0.00005
0.00000
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
INSTRUCTIONS :
A PDF copy of the ESA Confirmation first page shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file.
When EFP/ESA is invoked by a member EFP/ESA specification, the UPPAP file shall include the
appropriate evidence showing conformance to the EFP/ESA condition(s) specified in the SMD/SPD as
follows:
a. For Process Sheet Approval Required or Summary of Operations Required, include a copy of the
applicable approval form with objective evidence of that approval.
b. For Process Sheet Approval Not Required, include a copy of the initially approved SPD/SMD.

A) Evidence of EFP/ESA approval where required by drawing or process spec
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
###
0
Please insert copy of evidence of ESA approval in space below:
Dimensional Report
ONLY form 1 signed
Here, 5x Form 3
INSTRUCTIONS :
Provide copy below of evidence Acceptance Test Procedure was approved by Engineering
and an example of at least one test data sheet.
OBJECTIVE (ASQR
09.2) :
For Design Responsible Party parts, the file shall contain test results for the quantities
required in the referenced specification. If quantity is not specified then a minimum of five (5)
parts shall be tested, or agreater number as specified by the MFP.
For UPPAP approval purposes nonconformances are not permitted.

A) Does functional test (i.e., ATP/PAT/PVT) meet UTC division drawing and/or Procurement
Specification test requirements?
B) Has functional test been completed for at least 5 units or the minimum required by the
UTC division specification?
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
Please insert copy of Acceptence Test Procedure objective ev

(i.e., cover sheet with Revision Number/Letter, etc.) in the spac
###
0
e objective evidence
tc.) in the space below.
INSTRUCTIONS :
Provide copy below of evidence Special Process/NDT was approved by MFP and/or Supplier with Design Authority.
The UPPAP file shall contain evidence of the following:
If a SPECIAL PROCESS is required on:
- A member drawing (including drawing related documents) ---> Only member approved Special Process suppliers can be used. An excerpt of the
member companies SQL/ASL referencing the special process suppliers name and vendor code (with date processed), is sufficient evidence.
- A Design Responsible Party drawings ----> A copy/excerpt of the Design Responsible Party suppliers source qualification list, referencing the
special process suppliers name, is sufficient evidence.
If an NDT PROCESS is required on:
- A member drawing (including drawing related documents) ---> UTC approved NDT suppliers shall be used.
- A Design Responsible Party drawing ---> A copy/excerpt of the Design Responsible Party suppliers NDT qualification list, referencing the NDT
suppliers name is sufficient evidence.
NOTE 1: Reflect special processes requiring lab qualification and NDT approvals on the Certificates of Conformity (CofC).
NOTE 2: Additional documentation may be required for Flight Safety Parts, refer to ASQR-09.1

A) Is the Special Process supplier listed on a UTC division member Approved Vendor list specifically for the subject specification?
B) Did the product in question require special testing (i.e. grain size, microstructure), and if so is there evidence of completion and approval (i.e., is a
control plan included as part of the objective evidence package that reflects any special testing requirements)?
C) Is the certificate of compliance included?
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
Please insert PDF copy of evidence of Special Process and NDT approvals here.
SPECIAL PROCESS APPROVAL HERE
NDT APPROVAL HERE
INSTRUCTIONS :
Provide copy below of evidence material was tested and approved by an MFP approved test facility.

The UPPAP file shall contain:
a. Documented evidence that material was purchased from member approved source, when required.
b. For supplier designed parts, evidence that supplier approved sources for raw material is declared on the CofC. If
material is from a non-approved source, provide copies of the material test reports and results obtained through an
approved member test facility.
A) Materials were procured from a UTC division approved source when required.
B) For Producers with design authority, materials were procured from the Producer's approved source and is stated
on the C of C.
C) Materials from a non-approved sources (non LCS supplier) have material test reports from UTC division approved
test facility.
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
###
0
Please insert PDF copy of Cof C evidence of LCS or MCS in space provided below.
Note : Option to waived this requirement if the material supplier is

LCS, ands then if the supplier is not LCS, then "copies of the
material test reports and results" should be added into this
location
INSTRUCTIONS :
A PDF copy of the MFP appproved layout report shall be included in the UPPAP file.
For member drawing defined raw material (e.g., castings, forgings, or other raw material
defined by member drawing, etc.), the file shall contain a member specified approved layout
report with no nonconformances.
For UPPAP approval purposes, nonconformances are not permitted.

A) Ensure layout report is completed and approved by the UTC member division with zero
nonconformances.
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
Please insert copy of layout approval in space provided below.
INSTRUCTIONS :
A PDF copy of the pre-approval signed form.

The UPPAP file shall contain:
a. Documented evidence of member approval of part marking per the invoked part marking specification.
b. The digital photo of the part marking of a part or other evidence that demonstrates the part has been marked per
the drawing.
When ...
Then
Serialization or unique identification is required by contractual Additional member company requirements may
documents, on items other than Specification Controlled or
apply.
Source Control items.
2D Matrix is required by contractual documents.
The UPPAP file shall have a:

1. Copy of the members explicit approval of the 2D
marking in question and
2. Scanned print out of marking, displaying the
human readable product of the scan.
NOTE: Additional documentation may be required for Flight Safety Parts

A) Documented evidence of UTC division approval of part marking per the invoked part marking specification.
B) A digital photo of part marking on a part or other evidence that demonstrates the part has been marked per the
drawing.
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
Please insert copy of evidence of Part Marking approval in

space provided below:
INSTRUCTIONS :
A PDF copy of the pre-approval signed form.
The UPPAP file shall contain documented evidence of member approval of packaging per the invoked packaging
specification (Ref. ASQR 15.1)
A) Validate PP&L requirements are met per applicable UTC division drawing and/or specification.
B) In the event no UTC division specific PP&L requirements are specified, does packaging plan meet ASQR-15.1?
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
Please insert copy of evidence of Packaging, Preservation

and Labelling approval in space provided below:
INSTRUCTIONS :
A PDF copy of the PPAP Form 1 completed and signed.
The supplier shall:
a. Verify that all of the measurement and test results show conformance with member requirements.
b. Ensure all required documentation is available within the UPPAP file.
c. Review all the applicable data for content, accuracy, and process repeatability before submitting for approval.
c. Upon a satisfactory internal review, complete a UPPAP Approval Form, ASQR-09.2 Form 1 (refer to Appendix 1), and
submit to the MFP for approval.
d. Complete a separate ASQR-09.2 Form 1, for each part number unless otherwise agreed to by the MFP.

A) Ensure Form 1 is complete and includes producer Production/Quality Management signature
B) For interim class approval levels, ensure an adequate gap closure plan is included to achieve full UPPAP approval with
assigned owners and target dates for each action.
Index
Part Number:
Part Name:
0
0
PDF Form signed

Ref. ASQR 09.2 Form1
Index
Process Capability and Individuals & Moving Range (IX-MR) Chart

Part Number:
Drawing Number:
Part Name:
CTQ Feature:
Index
Drawing Zone:
Enter data ONLY in yellow-shaded cells.

This spreadsheet is designed for up to 50 observations and a moving range from 2 to 5.
Enter the sample size in cell E10. Then enter your data in the "Value" Column beginning with Cell B17.
PROCESS CAPABILITY CALCULATIONS

Number of samples (<= 50)
Sample size for moving range(2 - 5)
Grand Average
Average Range
#DIV/0!
0.00000
Observation
Value
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
D3
Nominal specification
Upper tolerance limit
Lower tolerance limit
D4
#N/A
LCLx
CLx
UCLx
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
#N/A
#DIV/0!
#N/A
d2
#N/A
Moving
Range
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
LCLr
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
Average
Standard Deviation
CLr
#N/A
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
UCLr
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
Cp
Cpl
Cpu
Cpk
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Individuals (X) Chart

12.0000
10.0000
8.0000
Value6.0000
4.0000
2.0000
0.0000
Observation number
Moving Range Chart

1.00000
0.90000
0.80000
Moving
ranges
0.70000
0.60000
0.50000
0.40000
0.30000
0.20000
0.10000
0.00000
Observation number
DO NOT MODIFY THIS TABLE

n
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A2
1.88
1.023
0.729
0.577
0.483
0.419
0.373
0.337
0.308
D3
0
0
0
0
0
0.076
0.136
0.184
0.223
Control Chart Factors

D4
d2
A3
3.267
1.128
2.659
2.574
1.693
1.954
2.282
2.059
1.628
2.114
2.326
1.427
2.004
2.534
1.287
1.924
2.704
1.182
1.864
2.847
1.099
1.816
2.97
1.032
1.777
3.078
0.975
B3
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.118
0.185
0.239
0.284
B4
3.267
2.568
2.266
2.089
1.97
1.882
1.815
1.761
1.716
Individuals
Upper control limit
Center line
Low er control limit
Moving ranges
Lower c ontrol limit
Center line
Upper c ontrol limit
Gage R&R Short Form Study
Index
Gage Name:
Gage Number:
Graduations:
Zero Equals:
Unit of Measure:
Part Number:
Part Name:
Operation Number:
Characteristic:
Specification:
Total Eng. Tolerance:
Performed By:
Operator A:
Operator B:
Area:
Date:
Instructions:
1) Type in shaded areas only.
2) Select 5 parts at random and number them 1 through 5.
2) Have two operators measure each part independently. Record results below.
4) Analyze the results to determine variability due to both Repeatability and Reproducibility.
Operator A
0
Part
1
2
3
4
5
Operator B
0
0.000000
RA (Range of 5 values) =
Range
0.000000
0.000000
RB (Range of 5 values) =
RbarCV = (RA+RB)/2 =
Sum of 5 ranges
Rbarm = Sum/5
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
NOTE: CV = Combined Variability used to calculate Process Tolerance
Product Sigma = Rbarm/1.19 =
0.000000
Process SigmaCV = RbarCV/d2 =
* See special Supplier Note below

Gage R&R for Product Acceptance =
0.00000
Rbarm * 4.33
Process Tolerance = 6 * SigmaCV =
0.000000
* 4.33 =
1) GAGE CAPABILITY (GC) FOR PRODUCT ACCEPTANCE (% of Engineering Tolerance)

GC as a % of Eng. Tolerance = (Gage R&R / Total Eng. Tolerance Range) * 100 =
#DIV/0!
* SPECIAL SUPPLIER NOTE: Supplier needs to enter "Product Sigma" into HS Process Certification Database when creating a
new Gage File for any HS defined KPCs/TKCs. Enter the Product Sigma into the database field entitled "Gage RR Std Deviation".
2) GAGE CAPABILITY FOR CONTROL CHART PURPOSES (% of Process Tolerance)
% of Process Tolerance = (R&R / 6 x SigmaCV) * 100 =
LEGEND
0.000000
NOTE: d2 = 2.326 for n=5
ACCEPTABLE
MARGINAL
#DIV/0!
UNACCEPTABLE
0.000000
Index
Instructions: Enter total tolerance; enter data under 1st and 2nd Meas. columns for EACH operator.
Today's Date
Date of Study
Gage #
GageType
OPERATOR A:
Sample
1
2
3
4
5
1st Meas.
0
2nd Meas.
OPERATOR B:
Range
1st Meas.
Performed By:
0
2nd Meas.
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Total
Operator A:
Range
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Mean
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Sigma
#DIV/0!
6-Sigma
#DIV/0!
Within part variation

Rbar =
0
0
Test for Strays

UCL =
#DIV/0! = Xbar of A
Operator B:
Area:
#DIV/0! =Xbar of B
Reproducibility - operator variation

Rbar =
%OF TOL.
Reproducibility & Repeatability - operator & equipment variation combined

Std dev of Combined =
% of Spread =
% of Tol. =
Units
Total Tol. =
Dimension
Part #
Op. #
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
Repeatability - equipment variation

Rbar =
%OF TOL.
COMMENTS:
0.000000
0
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
USE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE
OR REJECTION OF THE MEASURING DEVICE.
Percent of Spread/Tolerance Consumed by Gage R&R

NO VARIATION *
#DIV/0! **
** Question results if > 20%
WORKSHEET FOR GAGE R&R WITH TWO REPLICATIONS

PART NUMBER___________________
OPERATION
DIMENSION_____________________________________
OPERATOR "A"__________________________________________________________________________
OPERATOR "B"____________________________________________________________________________
**BEFORE CONDUCTING STUDY CHECK CALIBRATION DUE DATE AND MAKE SURE GAGE IS FREE FROM DIRT AND THAT THE GAGE IS IN GOOD CONDITION
(ALL CLAMPS ARE IN PLACE, NO CHIPPED LOCATING SURFACES, ETC..**
INSTRUCTIONS
1) SELECT FIVE PIECES OUT OF PRODUCTION.
2) OPERATOR "A" GAGE THE FIVE PIECES WHILE OPERATOR "B" RECORDS THE READINGS.
3) OPERATOR "A" REGAGE THE SAME FIVE PIECES WHILE OPERATOR "B" RECORDS THE 2ND SET OF READINGS.
4) OPERATOR "A" AND OPERATOR "B" REVERSE ROLES AND REPEAT STEPS 1 THROUGH 3. AFTER STUDY HAS BEEN COMPLETED, ENTER DATA INTO
APPROPRIATE FIELDS ABOVE TO ANALYZE THE DATA.
OPERATOR "A"
1ST READINGS
1
2
3
4
5
OPERATOR "B"
2ND READINGS
1ST READINGS
1
2
3
4
5
2ND READINGS
Gage R&R Long Form Study
Index
Instructions for this form:
1) Type only in the shaded blocks.
2) If using coded data, be sure to write in the "Total Eng. Tolerance" in coded form.
3) If you have any questions or comments, call Pete Teti at (860) 654-4800.
4) This spreadsheet is set up for either a 5-part or 10-part study. Do not use for any other quantity!!
5) "Total Eng. Tolerance" and "Operator Names" MUST be filled in for the form to work properly!!
Gage Name:
Gage No.:
Graduations:
Zero Equals:
Unit of Measure:
Part No.:
Part Name:
Operation No.:
Characteristic:
Specification:
Total Eng. Tolerance:
Performed By:
Operator A:
Operator B:
Operator C:
Area:
Date:
Instructions:
1) Select 10 parts at random and number them 1 through 10. (5 parts may be used if necessary)
2) Have two or three operators measure each part independently, two or three times each. Record results below.
3) Analyze the results to determine variability due to both Repeatability and Reproducibility.
Operator A:
Sample
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
Means
0
Replications
2
Xbar1
Xbar2
Xbar3
RbarA
XbarA =
Operator B:
Sample
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
Means
0
Replications
2
Xbar1
Xbar1 + Xbar2 + Xbar3
Xbar2
XbarB =
Operator C:
Sample
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
Means
Xbar3
RbarB
Replications
2
Xbar1
Replications
Xbar2
XbarC =
Xbar3
RbarC
Replications
XbarA =
Replications
XbarB =
XbarC =
Test for Statistical Control of Ranges

Rbar1 = RbarA + RbarB + RbarC =
#VALUE!
2
Operators
UCLR =
D4 * Rbar1
2.574
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
#VALUE!
= Range Upper Control Limit
Note: D4 is based on the number of Replications. (See table below)
Gage R&R Long Form Study Analysis

Repeatability (Gage Variation)
SGV =
Rbar1 / d2 =
#VALUE!
1.693
#VALUE!
Note: d2 is based on the number of Replications. (See table below)

Repeatability = 5.15 * SGV
#VALUE!
Percent of Engineering Tolerance Consumed by the Gage:

100 * 5.15 * SGV
#VALUE!
Eng. Tolerance
0.000000
Reproducibility (Between Operator Variation)
Rbar2 =
SOV =
#VALUE!
XbarLargest of ABC - XbarSmallest of ABC =

Rbar2 / d2* =
0.000000
0.000000
1.906
0.000000
Note: d2* is based on the number of Operators. (See table)
Number of parts =
Number of trials =
d2* =
Reproducibility =
Percent of Engineering Tolerance consumed by Operator Variation:

100 * 5.15 * SOV
0.000000
0.000000
Tolerance
0.000000
0.000000
0
0
1.906
{(Rbar2) X (5.15/d2*)}2 - {(Repeatability)2 / (No. parts X No. trials)} =
#VALUE!
#DIV/0!
Combined Reproducibility and Repeatability (Measurement System)

PRODUCT SIGMA - * See special Supplier Note below
S MV =
SOV2 + SGV2
0.000000
#VALUE!
1) Percent of Engineering Tolerance consumed by measurement system:

100 * 5.15 * S MV
#VALUE!
0.000000
Tolerance
#VALUE!
* SPECIAL SUPPLIER NOTE: Supplier needs to enter "Product Sigma" into

HS Process Certification Database when creating a new Gage File for any HS
defined KPCs/TKCs. Enter the Product Sigma into the database field entitled
"Gage RR Std Deviation".
#VALUE!
2) Percent of Process Tolerance (Combined Variability) consumed by measurement system:

R&R =
(Repeatability)2 + (Reproducibility)2 =
#VALUE!
Percent Process Tolerance (Combined Variability) = (R&R)/(6/d 2)*RbarCV =
#VALUE!
3.078
0.000000
#VALUE!
Range of Observations Within Each Trial

Operator
A
B
C
1st trial
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
2nd Trial
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
CAUTION: Percent Process Tolerance value is only valid for 5-part or 10-part studies.
3rd Trial
TOTAL
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
Sum 0.00000
RbarCV (Sum/No. Trials)
0
Gage R&R Long Form Study Evaluation Guideline
1) GAGE CAPABILITY (GC) FOR PRODUCT ACCEPTANCE (% of Engineering Tolerance)

GC as a % of Eng. Tolerance = (Gage R&R / Total Eng. Tolerance Range) * 100 =
#VALUE!
* SPECIAL SUPPLIER NOTE: Supplier needs to enter "Product Sigma" into HS Process Certification Database when creating a
new Gage File for any HS defined KPCs/TKCs. Enter the Product Sigma into the database field entitled "Gage RR Std Deviation".
2) GAGE CAPABILITY FOR CONTROL CHART PURPOSES (% of Process Tolerance)
% of Process Tolerance = (R&R / 5.15 x SigmaCV) * 100 =
LEGEND
Table of Factors used in calculations.
n
2
3
5
10
ACCEPTABLE
#VALUE!
MARGINAL
UNACCEPTABLE
D4
d2
d2*
3.268
2.574
1.128
1.693
2.326
3.078
1.414
1.906
Study ObservationPlease record any significant observations, such as Operator/Inspector methodical differences, environmental factors (i.e., lighting, temperature, vibration, distractions, etc.), difiiculties in
INSTRUCTIONS:
using the measurement system (i.e., obtaining readings, gage readability, ability to easily hold gage and/or part, etc.) that could influence the study results.
Index
Facility/Location: CSBU / Yondor City
Gage Capability Attribute Study (Agreement between Assessors (AbA) Binary Study)
KPI / O: Mounting hole

Key characteristic: Diameter
Performance
results
summary
Inspection method: Plug gauge
Header
information
Date of study: 5-Mar-07

Study manager: Ned Mooredadda
Comparisons, with 95%

confidence intervals.
Comparison of performance
A1=A2
B1=B2
A=B
A=E
B=E
21
out of
25
or
84.0%
15
"
25
"
60.0%
10
"
25
"
40.0% Between assessor agreement
20
"
25
"
80.0%
11
"
25
"
44.0%
Within assessor consistency
A1
26
28
Assessor /Assessor
Expert / Expert
###
###
### Assessor / Expert
Agreement
Agreement
###
###
###
Agreement
Between Assessor
Agreement
60.0%
###
###
###
60.0%
Between assessor agreement
###
###
###
Agreement with expert
###
###
###
44.0%
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Assessor
###
###
###
Marge Innoverra
###
###
###
Marge Innoverra
Abe Normle
###
###
###
Abe Normle
I. M. Wright
###
###
###
###
1
###
###
Conclusions:
###
###
###
0 = "Bad", 1 = "Good"
Assessor
A Marge Innoverra
A1
A2
E
B1
B2
Assessor A Expert Assessor B
B Abe Normle
Conclusions
Part
E (opt.) I. M. Wright
Obs. 1 Obs. 2 (Opt.) Obs. 1 Obs. 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
Conclusions:
3
A's consistency is poor (< 95%).
1
1
1
1
0
4
B's consistency is poor (< 95%).
0
0
0
1
1
5
B's consistency is worse than A's.
0
1
1
1
1
6
A to B agreement is poor (< 95%).
0
0
0
0
1
Assessor A Data entry.
7
A to E agreement is poor (< 95%).
0
0
0
0
0
0 = Part failed
1=Part
8 passed
B to E agreement is poor (< 95%).
1
1
1
0
0
9
B to E agreement is worse than A's.
0
0
0
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
1
11
0
0
0
0
1
12
Part 1
Part 2
0
0
0
0 Assessor
0 B Data entry.
0 = Part failed
1
1
13
0
1
0
0
1
1=Part
passed
14
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
15
0
1
0
0
1
A1
A2
E
B1
B2
A1
A2
'Expert'
16
0opinion0(optional).
0
0
0
0 = Part failed
17
Part 6
Part 7
0
0
0
0
0
1=Part
passed
1
1
18
0
0
0
0
1
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
A1
A2
E
B1
B2
A1
A2
21
0
0
0
0
0
22
Part 11
Part 12
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
23
0
0
0
0
1
24
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
1
27
Ned
Ned
NedMooredadda
Mooredadda
Mooredadda
Within Assessor
Consistency
A2
B1
B2
Part 16
1
A1
A2
B's
B's consistency
consistencyis
B's
is
B's
poor
poor
consistency
consistency
(<
(< 95%).
95%).isis poor
poor (<
(< 95%).
95%).
B's
B's consistency
consistencyisis
B's
B's
worse
worse
consistency
consistency
than
thanA's.
A's.isis worse
worse than
thanA's.
A's.
AAto
to BB agreement
agreementAA
isisto
to
poor
poor
BB agreement
agreement
(<
(< 95%).
95%). isis poor
poor (<
(< 95%).
95%).
AAto
to EE agreement
agreementAA
isisto
to
poor
poor
EE agreement
agreement
(<
(< 95%).
95%). isis poor
poor (<
(< 95%).
95%).
% agreement with themselves
% agreement between them
I = 95% confidence bound.
x = each assessor's average.

Part 3
1
Part 4
1
0
E
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
B1
B2
A1
A2
B2
B2
Part 17
1
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
Part 18
1
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A1
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
Part 19
1
A1
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
Part 20
1
29
30
32
33
0
A1
31
A2
B1
B2
Part 21
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 22
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 23
1
0
A1
###
###
0
###
###
Part 15
1
0
A1
###
###
1
###
###
###
###
0
###
###
1
0
A1
0
A1
A1
Part 10
1
Part 14
1
0
B1
A2
0
B1
Part 13
1
0
A1
Part 9
1
###
###
1
###
###
Part 5
1
0
A1
Part 8
1
Results plots for each
of the parts in the
0
study.
E
% agreement with expert
A2
B1
B2
Part 24
1
A1
0
1
26
27
28
29
30
Part 25
1
34
35
37
38
0
A1
36
A2
B1
B2
Part 26
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 27
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 28
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 29
1
A1
Part 30
1
39
40
42
43
0
A1
41
A2
B1
B2
Part 31
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 32
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 33
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 34
1
A1
Part 35
1
44
45
47
48
0
A1
46
A2
B1
B2
Part 36
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 37
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 38
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 39
1
A1
Part 40
1
49
50
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 41
1
A2
B1
B2
Part 42
1
0
A2
B1
B2
Part 46
1
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 49
1
A2
B1
B2
A1
Part 50
1
0
A1
A1
Part 45
1
0
A1
0
A1
0
A1
Part 44
1
Part 48
1
0
A1
A2
0
A1
Part 47
1
0
A1
Part 43
1
0
A1
0
A1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
A1
35
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Index
Facility/Location:
Gage Capability Attribute Study (Agreement between Assessors (AbA) Binary Study)
KPI / O:
Key characteristic:
Inspection method:
Date of study:
Study manager:
Study
Study
Studymanager:
manager:
manager:
Comparison of performance
A1=A2
B1=B2
A=B
A=E
B=E
out of
or
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
Within assessor consistency
A2
B1
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Assessor
###
###
###
#
A
###
###
##
A
#
B
###
###
##
B
Obs. ###
2
###
###
###
1
###
###
Conclusions:
###
###
###
Assessor
B2
Assessor A Expert Assessor B

Obs. 1 Obs. 2 (Opt.) Obs. 1 Obs. 2
Part
Assessor /Assessor
Expert / Expert
###
###
### Assessor / Expert
Agreement
Agreement
###
###
###
Agreement
Between Assessor
Agreement
0 = "Bad", 1 = "Good"
A1
Within Assessor
Consistency
A
B
E (opt.)
1
2
Conclusions:
3
4
5
6
7
% agr eem ent with themsel ves
% a greement between them
% agreement wi th expert
8
9
10
I = 95% confidence bound.
x = each assessor's average.
###
###
11
###
###
11
12
13
Part 1
1
Part 2
1
Part 3
1
Part 4
1
Part 5
1
14
15
16
17
18
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 6
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 7
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 8
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 9
1
A1
A2
B1
B2
###
###
14
###
###
###
###
17
###
###
18
Part 10
1
19
20
22
23
0
A1
21
A2
B1
B2
Part 11
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 12
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 13
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 14
1
A1
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
Part 15
1
24
25
26
27
28
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 16
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 17
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 18
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 19
1
A1
Part 20
1
29
30
32
33
0
A1
31
A2
B1
B2
Part 21
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 22
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 23
1
0
A1
###
###
20
###
###
A2
B1
B2
Part 24
1
A1
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Part 25
1
34
35
37
38
0
A1
36
A2
B1
B2
Part 26
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 27
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 28
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 29
1
A1
Part 30
1
39
40
42
43
0
A1
41
A2
B1
B2
Part 31
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 32
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 33
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 34
1
A1
Part 35
1
44
45
47
48
0
A1
46
A2
B1
B2
Part 36
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 37
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 38
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 39
1
A1
Part 40
1
49
50
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 41
1
0
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
Part 46
1
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
A2
B1
B2
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
Part 49
1
A2
B1
B2
A1
Part 50
1
0
A1
A1
Part 45
1
0
A1
0
A1
0
A1
Part 44
1
Part 48
1
0
A1
A2
0
A1
Part 47
1
0
A1
Part 43
1
0
A1
0
A1
Part 42
1
0
A1
A2
B1
B2
A1
35
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
FM
SEVERITY RISK TABLE
Criteria: Severity of Effect
Category (Product)
Category
(Process)
Rank
(Effect on Product)
Potential failure mode affects safe vehicle
operation and/or involves noncompliance with
government regulation without warning
10
Potential failure mode affects safe vehicle

operation and/or involves noncompliance with
government regulation with warning
Primary
function
Loss of primary function (vehicle inoperable, does

not affect safe vehicle operation)
Major disruption
Essential
Degradation of primary function (vehicle operable,

but at reduced level of performance)
Significant
disruption
Secondary
function
Loss of secondary function (vehicle operable, but

comfort / convenience functions inoperable)
Convenient
Degradation of secondary function (vehicle

operable, but comfort / convenience functions at
reduced level of performance)
Appearance or audible noise, vehicle operable,

item does not conform. Defect noticed by most
customers (> 75%)

item does not conform. Defect noticed by many
customers (50%)

item does not conform. Defect noticed by
discriminating customers (< 25%)
Minor
disruption
No discernible effect
No effect
Safety and/or
regulatory
compliance
Annoyance
No effect
Safety and/or
regulatory
compliance
Rework out of
station
Rework in
station
DETECTION RISK TABLE

PFMEA Criteria:
Opportunity for
Likelihood of
Rank
Detection
Detection
Likelihood of detection by process control
No detection
No current process control; cannot detect or is not
10 Almost impossible
opportunity
analyzed
Not likely to detect
Failure Mode and/or error (cause) is not easily
9
Very remote
at any stage
detected (e.g. random audits)
Problem detection
post processing
Failure Mode detection post-processing by

operator through visual/tactile/audible means
Remote
Failure Mode detection in station by operator

Problem detection
through visual/tactile/audible means or postat source
processing through use of attribute gauging (go/no
go, manual torque check/clicker wrench, etc)
Very low

operator through the use of variable gauging or inProblem detection
station by operator through use of attribute
post processing
gauging (go/no go, manual torque check/clicker
wrench, etc)
Low
Failure Mode or Error (cause) detection in-station

by operator through the use of variable gauging,
Problem detection or by automated controls in-station that will detect
at source
discrepant part and notify operator (light, buzzer,
etc.) Gauging performed on setup and first-piece
check (for setup causes only)
Moderate

Problem detection
automated controls that will detect discrepant part
post processing
and lock part to prevent further processing
Moderately high
Failure Mode detection in-station by automated

Problem detection
controls that will detect discrepant part and
at source
automatically lock part in station to prevent further
processing
High
Error detection
and/or Problem
prevention
Error (cause) detection in station by automated

controls that will detect error and prevent
discrepant part from being made
Very high
Detection not
applicable; error
prevention
Error (cause) prevention as a result of fixture

design, machine design or part design.
Discrepant parts cannot be made because item
has been error-proofed by process/product
design.
Almost certain
FMEA RISK TABLES
TABLE
OCCU
Criteria: Severity of Effect
Likelihood of failure
(Effect on Process)
May endanger operator (machine or assembly)

without warning
Very High
Failure is almost inevitable
May endanger operator (machine or assembly)

with warning
High
Failures occur almost
as often as not
100% of product may have to be scrapped. Line

shutdown or stop ship
High
Repeated failures
A portion of the production rue may have to be

scrapped. Deviation from primary process;
decreased line speed or added manpower
High
Failures occur
often
100% of production run may have to be reworked

off line and accepted
Moderate High
Frequent failures
A portion of the production run may have to be

reworked off line and accepted
Moderate
Occasional failures
100% of production run may have to be reworked

in station before it is processed
Moderate Low
Infrequent failures
A portion of the production run may have to be

reworked in station before it is processed
Low
Relatively few failures
Slight inconvenience to process, operation or

operator
Low
Failures are few and far
between
No discernible effect
Very Low
Failure is eliminated
through prevention
controls
Index
S
OCCURRENCE RISK TABLE
Time-based Scale
Event-based Scale
Criteria: Occurrence of
cause - PFMEA
(incidents per 1000 items
/ vehicles)
1 occurrence / shift
Cpk < 0.33
100 per thousand

>/= 1 in 10
10
1 occurrence / day
Cpk 0.33
50 per thousand
1 in 20
1 per 2-3 days
Cpk 0.67
20 per thousand
1 in 50
1 per week
Cpk 0.83
10 per thousand
1 in 100
1 per 2 weeks
Cpk 1.00
2 per thousand
1 in 500
1 per month
Cpk 1.17
0.5 per thousand

1 in 2 000
1 per quarter
Cpk 1.33
0.1 per thousand

1 in 10 000
1 per half-year
Cpk 1.67
0.01 per thousand

1 in 100 000
1 per year
Cpk 2.00
0.001 per thousand

1 in 1 000 000
<1 per year
Cpk > 2.00
Failure is eliminated
through preventive control
Rank

Ppap Workbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ppap Workbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UPPAP SUPPLIER EVIDENCE PACKAGE

1) Revised DFMEA and PFMEA worksheets to bring up to J1739

Workbook Revision Date: July 31, 2013

Technical FellowProduct Quality

Pratt & Whitney

Technical FellowProduct Quality

Pratt & Whitney

Pratt & Whitney

Pratt & Whitney

Technical FellowProduct Quality

UPPAP INPUT SHEET

Drawing Revision No.:

Producer Contact Email

Engineering Change Level

Level 3 - Form 1 with

UTC Member Focal Point

UPPAP Initial Submission

UTC Contact Phone

UTC Contact E-Mail Address

Revision Control Table:

Released Production Drawings

UPPAP Core Elements

Process Control Plan

Process Readiness Study (PRS)

Production Verification Testing

Special Processes & NDT

UPPAP Review and Sign-Off

Appendix 1 - Form 2 Change Notice

UPPAP EVIDENCE PACKAGE

UPPAP Checklist items:

Part Revision Level:

Please insert PDF copy of Drawing Title Block in space below.

UPPAP EVIDENCE PACKAGE

Workbook Revision: 04/12

UPPAP EVIDENCE PACKAGE

UPPAP EVIDENCE PACKAGE

OBJECTIVE (ASQR 09.2) :

Dwg Revision Level:

Please insert PDF copy of your 1st technical

Workbook Revision: 04/12

Dwg Revision Level:

Please insert PDF copy of Purchase Order (P.O.) in space below.

Workbook Revision: 04/12

Design Failure Mode

This document contains no te

PFMEA Revision: Original

For instructions, slide cursor over column

Component & Function

ults (e.g. list of recommended action items etc.) shall be

evelop a design FMEA per SAE J1739 or as defined by

er and has established revision level and that DFMEA is a

C, CTSC, FSC, KPC1, KPC2). Ensure lower level key

n Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (DFMEA) Worksheet

cument contains no technical data subject to the EAR or the ITAR

Current Process Controls

ve the file, slide cursor over this cell.

Recommended Actions and Predicted Risk

Largest RPN Value

Optional - For Business Case

Dwg. Revision Level:

Please insert PDF copy of Process Flowchart in space below.

Dwg. Revision Level:

Page _ of _