AEROSPACE AS1 3004™

STANDARD Issued 201 7-08

Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) and Control Plans

RATIONALE

This standard was created to establish a common practice for effective process risk identification, assessment, mitigation,
and prevention. It defines a methodology to mitigate risk using Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs), Process Failure Mode and
Effects Analysis (PFMEA), and Control Plans. It is to be used by organizations throughout the life cycle of a product.

FOREWORD

To assure customer satisfaction, the aviation, space, and defense industry organizations have to produce and continually
improve safe, reliable products that equal or exceed customer and regulatory authority requirements. The globalization of
the industry and the resulting diversity of regional/national requirements and expectations have complicated this objective.
End-product organizations face the challenge of assuring the quality of and integration of product purchased from
suppliers throughout the world and at all levels within the supply chain. Industry suppliers face the challenge of delivering
product to multiple customers having varying quality expectations and requirements.

The Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) Committee was established as the G-22 Technical Committee under the
SAE Aerospace Council to develop, specify, maintain, and promote quality standards relating to the aerospace engine
supply chain. The principles defined within this standard may be applicable to other segments of the aviation, space, and
defense industries.

The AESQ strategy is to create a series of related quality standards for use within the aerospace engine supply chain with
the intention of exceeding customer expectations through effective application of the full series of interrelated AESQ
quality standards (see Appendix A).

___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ____________________________________

SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: “This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this report is
entirely voluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising therefrom, is the sole responsibility of the user.”
SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be revised, reaffirmed, stabilized, or cancelled. SAE invites your written comments and
suggestions.
Copyright © 201 7 SAE International
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE.
TO PLACE A DOCUMENT ORDER: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) SAE values your input. To provide feedback on this
Tel: +1 724-776-4970 (outside USA) Technical Report, please visit
Fax: 724-776-0790 http://standards.sae.org/AS1 3004
Email: [email protected]
SAE WEB ADDRESS: http://www.sae.org
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 2 of 30

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SCOPE ............................................. ................................................... ................................................... ....... 3
2. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS ................................................... ................................................... .................. 3
2.1 SAE Publications ...................................... ................................................... .................................................. 3
2.2 Other Publications ...................................... ................................................... ................................................ 3
3. TERMS AND DEFINITONS ................................................... ................................................... .................... 4
4. REQUIREMENTS ................................................... ................................................... ................................... 6
4.1 Process Risk Identification, Assessment, Mitigation, and Prevention Overview .......................................... . 6
4.2 Applicability..................................... ................................................... ................................................... ......... 7
4.3 Training and Competency ................................................... ................................................... ....................... 7
4.4 Organizational Quality System Requirements ...................................... ................................................... ...... 7
4.5 General Requirements ...................................... ................................................... ......................................... 7
4.6 Process Flow Diagram (PFD) ................................................... ................................................... ................. 8
4.7 Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) ........................................... ....................................... 9
4.8 Control Plan .............................................. ................................................... ................................................ 1 2
5. NOTES ............................................. ................................................... ................................................... ..... 1 4
5.1 Revision Indicator ......................................... ................................................... ............................................ 1 4
APPENDIX A STANDARDS RELATIONSHIPS ................................................... ................................................... .......... 1 5
APPENDIX B ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST.......................................... ................................................... .......................... 1 6
APPENDIX C CASE STUDY - MACHINED DETAILS AND ASSEMBLY .......................................... ................................ 1 7
APPENDIX D LINKAGES BETWEEN PFD, PFMEA, AND CONTROL PLAN .............................................. .................... 24
APPENDIX E PFMEA RANKING CRITERIA FOR SEVERITY - OCCURreNCE - DETECTION ...................................... 25
APPENDIX F PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (PFMEA) TEMPLATE ...................................... 27
APPENDIX G CONTROL PLANFREE
Get more TEMPLATEstandards ...................................................
from Standard Sharing Group ...................................................
and our chats .............. 28
APPENDIX H PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM (PFD) TEMPLATES ................................................... ................................. 29
APPENDIX I ACRONYM LOG ................................................... ................................................... ................................... 30
Figure 1 AS1 3004 requirements, scope, and relationships ..................................... ................................................... . 6
Table 1 Application guidance for AS1 3004 to products currently in production ........................................ ................. 7
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 3 of 30

1 . SCOPE
This standard defines requirements for the identification, assessment, mitigation, and prevention of risk in the
manufacturing process through the application of Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs), Process Failure Mode and Effects
Analysis (PFMEA) and Control Plans throughout the life cycle of a product.
This standard aligns and collaborates with the requirements of AS91 00, AS91 02, AS91 03, and AS91 45.
The requirements specified in this standard apply in conjunction with and are not alternative to contractual and applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements. In case of conflict between the requirements of this standard and applicable
statutory or regulatory requirements, the latter shall take precedence.
2. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS
The following referenced documents are important for the application of this document. For dated references, only the
edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments)
applies. In the event of conflict between the text of this document and references cited herein, the text of this document
takes precedence. Nothing in this document, however, supersedes applicable laws and regulations unless a specific
exemption has been obtained.
2.1 SAE Publications
Available from SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 1 5096-0001 , Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA
and Canada) or +1 724-776-4970 (outside USA), www.sae.org .
AS1 3000 Problem Solving Requirements for Suppliers
AS1 3002 Requirements for Developing and Qualifying Alternate Inspection Frequency Plans
AS1 3003 Measurement Systems Analysis Requirements for the Aero Engine Supply Chain
AS91 00* Quality Management Systems - Requirements for Aviation, Space, and Defense Organizations
AS91 01 * Quality Management Systems - Audit Requirements for Aviation, Space, and Defense Organizations
AS91 02* Aerospace First Article Inspection Requirement
AS91 03* Aerospace Series - Quality Management Systems - Variation Management of Key Characteristics
AS91 31 * Aerospace Series - Quality Management Systems - Nonconformance Data Definition and Documentation
AS91 45* Aerospace Series - Requirements for Advanced Product Quality Planning and Production Part Approval
Process
NOTE: *Developed under the auspices of the IAQG and listed here as SAE International “AS” publications. Equivalent
versions may be published by other standards bodies [e.g., European Committee for Standardization (CEN),
Japanese Standards Association/Society of Japanese Aerospace companies (JSA/SJAC)].
2.2 Other Publications
Copies of these documents are available online at http://webstore.ansi.org/ .
ISO 9000 Quality Management Systems - Fundamentals and Vocabulary
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 4 of 30

3. TERMS AND DEFINITONS

In this Aerospace Standard, the following verbal forms are used:
• “shall” indicates a requirement;
• “should” indicates a recommendation;
• “may” indicates a permission;
• “can” indicates a possibility or a capability.
Information marked as “NOTE:” is for guidance in understanding or clarifying the associated requirement.
For the purpose of this standard, terms and definitions stated in ISO 9000 and the following definitions apply. An acronym
log for this document is detailed within Appendix I.
ALTERNATIVE PROCESSES: Alternative processes are different approved processes used to achieve the same output
(e.g., backup equipment, secondary source, alternative approved sequence).
CHARACTERISTICS MATRIX: An analytical technique for displaying the relationship between process parameters and
manufacturing stations.
CONTAINMENT PLAN: Action to control and mitigate the impact of a nonconformity and protect the customer's operation
(stop the problem from getting worse); includes correction, immediate corrective action, immediate communication, and
verification that the nonconforming situation does not further degrade (refer to AS91 01 ).
CONTROL PLAN: A documented description linking manufacturing process steps to key inspection and control activities.
The intent of a Control Plan is to control the design characteristics and the process variables to ensure product quality.
Get more FREE standards from Standard Sharing Group and our chats
CRITICAL ITEMS (CI): Those items (e.g., functions, parts, software, characteristics, processes) having significant effect
on the provision and use of the products and services; including safety, performance, form, fit, function, producibility,
service life, etc., that require specific actions to ensure they are adequately managed. Examples of critical items include
safety critical items, fracture critical items, mission critical items, key characteristics, etc. (refer to AS91 00).
CUSTOMER: Person or organization that could or does receive a product or a service that is intended for or required by
this person or organization (refer to ISO 9000).
Example: Consumer, client, end-user, retailer, receiver of product or service from an internal process, beneficiary, and
purchaser.
DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS: Those dimensional, visual, functional, mechanical, and material features or properties,
which describe and constitute the design of the article, as specified by drawing or Digital Product Definition requirements.
These characteristics can be measured, inspected, tested, or verified to determine conformance to the design
requirements. Dimensional features include in process locating features (e.g., target-machined or forged/cast dimensions
on forgings and castings, weld/braze joint preparation necessary for acceptance of finished joint). Material features or
properties may include processing variables and sequences, which are specified by the drawing or Digital Product
Definition (e.g., heat treat temperature, fluorescent penetrant class, ultrasonic scans, and sequence of welding and heat
treat). These provide assurance of intended characteristics that could not be otherwise defined (refer to AS91 02).
NOTE: For the purpose of this standard Design Characteristic is also known as Product Characteristic.
DESIGN RECORDS: The records of the engineering definition/specification, which fully define the product (system, part,
component, or assembly), including physical or electronic/digital drawings, electronic/digital models, software, or other
associated information. This includes records of authorized engineering changes not yet incorporated into the released
engineering definition/specification.
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 5 of 30

DESIGN RISK ANALYSIS: Analytical techniques used by the design responsible organization to identify, to the extent
possible, potential failure modes related to product performance (i.e., fit, form, and function), durability, manufacturability,
and cost.
DETECTION CONTROL: Control to detect the cause of the failure mode or the actual failure mode after it has occurred.
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (FMEA): A structured method for analyzing risk by ranking and documenting
potential failure modes in a system, design, or process. The analysis includes:
• Identification of potential failures and their effects
• Ranking of factors (e.g., severity, frequency of occurrence, detectability of the potential failures)
• Identification and results of actions taken to reduce or eliminate risk
The FMEA assists in the identification of CIs as well as Key Characteristics, helps prioritize action plans for mitigating risk,
and serves as a repository for lessons learned. These may include: System FMEA, Interface FMEA, Design Failure Mode
and Effects Analysis (DFMEA), and Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA).
INSPECTION PLAN/TEST PLAN: A detailed description of inspection and test activities (e.g., tolerances, methods,
gauges) for features or attributes to be performed during specific manufacturing operations.
KEY CHARACTERISTIC (KC): An attribute or feature whose variation has a significant effect on product fit, form, function,
performance, service life, or producibility, that requires specific actions for the purpose of controlling variation (refer to
AS91 00).
This definition is further explained as follows:
• Product or system KCs are those selected geometrical, material properties, functional, and/or cosmetic features;
which are measurable, and whose variation control is necessary for fulfilling customer requirements and enhancing
customer satisfaction.
• Process KCs are those selected measurable characteristics of a process whose control is essential to manage
variation of product or system KCs.
• Substitute KCs may be identified when a customer defined KC is not readily measurable, within the
production/maintenance setting, and other characteristics may need to be controlled to ensure conformance.
NOTE: Design output can include identification of CIs that require specific actions to ensure they are adequately
managed. Some CIs shall be further classified as KCs because their variation needs to be controlled.
ORGANIZATION: Person or group of people that has its own functions with responsibilities, authorities and relationships to
achieve its objectives (refer to ISO 9000).
PREVENTION CONTROL: Prevention control describes how a cause and/or failure mode is prevented or how the rate of
occurrence is reduced. It is used as input to the occurrence ranking when integrated as part of the process.
PROCESS: A combination of people, material, machines, tools, environment, and methods that produce a product or
service.
PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS: Process variables that have a cause and effect relationship with design characteristics.
Process characteristics can only be measured at the time they occur.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM (PFD): A representation of the sequential steps of the process which includes all operations
from receipt of the material through to storage, packaging, and shipment.
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 6 of 30

PRODUCT: Any intended output resulting from the product realization process, which in the context of this standard
includes finished detailed parts, sub-assemblies, assemblies, forgings and castings (refer to AS91 02).
PRODUCT QUALITY ESCAPE: Any product released by an internal/external supplier or sub-tier supplier that is
subsequently determined to be nonconforming to contract and/or product specification requirements (refer to AS91 31 ).
REACTION PLAN: A plan that specifies actions necessary to avoid producing nonconforming product, operating out of
control and details containment plans to be invoked when nonconforming product is detected.
RISK PRIORITY NUMBER (RPN): The product of the severity, occurrence, and detection rankings and is calculated for
each unique failure mode and cause combination.
Example: Calculating RPN: Severity 7 X Occurrence 3 X Detection 5 = RPN 1 05
STANDARD REWORK: Documented preapproved detailed actions to fix nonconforming product for a reoccuring
condition(s) to make it conform to the design records.
SUPPLIER: Organization that provides a product or service (refer to ISO 9000).
Example: Producer, distributor, retailer, or vendor of a product or a service.
WORK INSTRUCTION: Description of how to carry out the operations of a particular process.
Work instruction information can include “Operation Sequence List”, “Router”, “Traveler”, or “Shop Order”.
4. REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Process Risk Identification, Assessment, Mitigation, and Prevention Overview
4.1 .1 The methodologyGet defined in this standards
more FREE standard shall
from beStandard
accomplished usingGroup
Sharing a cross-functional team, which may include
and our chats
but is not limited to, Manufacturing Engineers (including technical experts), Process Planners, Quality Engineers,
Process Operators, Inspectors, Design Engineers, and Equipment Maintenance Staff. The organization shall
define roles and responsibilities for accomplishing the requirements of this standard.
Figure 1 illustrates the scope of this standard and the relationship between the key elements. The scope of this standard is
indicated by the dashed line.

Figure 1 - AS13004 requirements, scope, and relationships

SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 7 of 30

4.1 .2 The cross-functional team shall develop PFD, PFMEA, and Control Plans with input from the Design Risk
Analysis.
NOTE 1 : Design Risk Analysis identifies Product KCs that serve as critical inputs to the risk mitigation process.
NOTE 2: Alternative methods for PFD, PFMEA, and Control Plans that are demonstrated to be equivalently effective are
acceptable with prior customer approval.
4.2 Applicability
4.2.1 Process risk identification, assessment, mitigation and prevention shall be conducted as part of New Product
Introduction to reduce risks in manufacturing.
4.2.2 This standard shall apply, when directed by the customer, to products currently in production when the
manufacturing processes are changed or transferred to a new location or being addressed for improvement, e.g.,
due to a root cause investigation.
Table 1 provides guidance for the application of this standard to products currently in production.
Table 1 - Application guidance for AS13004 to products currently in production

Event Clarification
Changes Discovery of an unknown failure mode following an
resulting from inservice issue, product quality escape, major quality issue
root cause or manufacturing issue
investigation
Process change A change in material, method and/or measurement
technique that can potentially affect form, fit or function
Design change Design record modification including the addition of new
KCs
Standard Parts / This standard is not applied to manufacture of standard
Commercial-off- parts and/or Commercial-off-the-Shelf items unless
the-Shelf requested by the customer
4.2.3 When this standard is invoked it shall continue to apply throughout the lifecycle of the product.
4.2.4 The organization shall be responsible for the flow down of this standard to any supplier that manufactures and/or
supplies products and services.
4.3 Training and Competency
4.3.1 Competent use of tools and methodologies defined within this standard is essential to ensure effective process
risk identification, assessment, mitigation, and prevention. The organization shall determine and document specific
competency and training requirements relevant to its ability to comply with this standard.
4.4 Organizational Quality System Requirements
4.4.1 The organization shall have a documented process within its own quality system which meets the requirements of
this standard. The process shall be fully implemented and subject to a periodic assessment (see Appendix B).
4.5 General Requirements
4.5.1 Unless otherwise agreed by the customer, the PFD, PFMEA, and Control Plan shall be part number specific.
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 8 of 30

4.5.2 PFDs, PFMEAs, and Control Plans shall be reviewed and updated to capture process and inspection changes and
new knowledge gained during production, e.g., lessons learned from production stops or delays, nonconformance,
product quality escapes, inspection data, root cause corrective action investigations on current or similar products,
and scrap data.
NOTE: There is a close link between the PFMEA and the Design Risk Analysis. The Design Risk Analysis identifies
potential failure modes and effects, and with their severity, should be used as an input to the PFMEA. Updates to
either may impact the other and should be taken into account.
4.5.3 The PFD, PFMEA, and Control Plan shall be linked to provide an easy read-across from process operations
through to risk reduction through to process control (see Appendix D).
4.5.4 Operation numbering and sequencing detailed on the PFD shall be consistent throughout all documents produced
to this standard by an organization.
4.6 Process Flow Diagram (PFD)
4.6.1 Inputs to developing a PFD shall include the following (when available):
• Design Risk Analysis [e.g., Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (DFMEA)]
• Design Records
• Bill of Material
• Product and Process KCs
• Tooling and equipment
Get more FREE standards from Standard Sharing Group and our chats
• Handling equipment and packaging
• Subcontracted process steps
• PFD from similar products
• Quality history on similar products and processes (e.g., defect data, material review board history, quality notifications,
product quality escapes)
4.6.2 Outputs from the development of a PFD shall include:
• PFD including details of all operations in sequential order from receipt of materials through storage and shipment of
finished product. This encompasses alternative processes, standard rework and movement of product from operation
to operation as well as to and from external operations.
NOTE: Information from the PFD may be used to establish processing sequence documents, as defined in work
instructions.
4.6.3 The PFD shall be sufficiently detailed in order to clearly and completely describe the process required to receive
material, manufacture, inspect, test, protect, store, and ship conforming product.
NOTE: The PFD need not include processes for procured materials, components, and assemblies.
4.6.4 The organization shall use one of the PFD templates as defined within this standard, or one with equivalent
content (see Appendix H). Any deviation to this shall be approved by the customer.
Typical worked examples of PFDs have been included within this standard for reference (see Appendix C, Figures C3
and C4).
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 9 of 30

4.7 Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA)

4.7.1 Inputs to developing a PFMEA shall include the following (when available):
• PFD
• Identification of all steps within each operation
• Nonconformance data for similar products and processes, including lessons learned
• Characteristics Matrix
• Design Risk Analysis (e.g., DFMEA)
• Existing PFMEA on similar products and processes
• Product KCs (including customer defined KCs)
• Process KCs (potential or as defined in the design records)
• Control Plan from similar processes
4.7.2 Outputs from the development of a PFMEA shall include:
• PFMEA with action plans to mitigate risks where necessary
• Product and process KCs identified through the PFMEA
4.7.3 The organization shall use the PFMEA methodology to identify additional product KCs and/or relevant process
KCs, in addition to those defined in the design records.
4.7.4 The PFMEA shall include all operations identified in the PFD. Details of steps within each operation shall be
considered and included based on the potential risk (see Appendix C, Figure C3 and C4).
4.7.5 The PFMEA severity, occurrence and detection rankings shall be reviewed and actions considered for
reprioritization when changes are made to the process or product, when rate of failure occurrence is not reflective
of actual frequency, nonconformance has occurred that was not previously listed or when new controls are
implemented or existing controls modified.
4.7.6 PFMEA Template and Ranking Criteria
4.7.6.1 The organization shall use the PFMEA template defined within this standard, or one with equivalent content (see
Appendix F). Any deviation to this shall be approved by the customer.
4.7.6.2 The organization shall use the severity, occurrence, and detection ranking criteria defined within this standard
(see Appendix E). Use of alternative ranking criteria is acceptable with prior customer approval.
4.7.7 Identification of Potential Failure Modes
4.7.7.1 The PFMEA shall identify potential failure mode(s). Any potential manner in which the product could fail to meet
requirements or fail to deliver the intended function shall be considered as a potential failure mode.
NOTE: Experiences based on similar products can be a valuable input. To aid failure mode identification, the team should
also refer to previous product history, similar product history, lessons learned, customer feedback, etc.
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 1 0 of 30

4.7.7.2 All product and process characteristics including KCs associated with a potential failure mode shall be
documented in the PFMEA.
NOTE: Characteristics which appear to be similar could have very different consequences if failure occurs (see
Appendix C, Figure C5).
4.7.7.3 Failure modes shall be documented in the PFMEA in terms that relate them to design records.
NOTE 1 : Failure mode(s) should be expressed in physical or technical terms that are contrary to the requirement or
function of the product and that could be considered to be a legitimate customer complaint.
NOTE 2: Examples of failure modes:
• Diameter over high limit
• Diameter under low limit
• Surface finish over requirement
• Position of feature out of tolerance
4.7.7.4 Failure modes shall be documented in the PFMEA to align with the process step within which they may be
caused.
NOTE: Ensure that all potential failure modes are identified, not just those that have already occurred on the product or
similar products and/or processes (the team should consider what could go wrong and not just what has gone
wrong).
4.7.7.5 If specified by the customer, all product features and potential failure modes shall be documented within the
Get more
PFMEA to ensure that FREE standards
each are evaluated.from Standard Sharing Group and our chats
4.7.8 The Effect(s) of the Potential Failure Mode
4.7.8.1 The effects for each potential failure mode shall be identified and considered against subsequent manufacturing
steps, higher level assemblies, the final product and the end customer. Effects shall describe, where known, the
impact on the product or system performance in terms of what the customer might notice or experience and
identify clearly if the effect of a failure mode includes noncompliance to regulations.
NOTE 1 : One potential failure mode may have several different effects, each of which should be documented.
NOTE 2: Examples of customer effects:
• Performance impaired
• Unable to operate
• In flight engine shutdown
• Product cannot be installed by the customer
NOTE 3: Manufacturing effects describe the impact on the process/operation performance. Examples of manufacturing
effects:
• Damaged equipment
• Cannot assemble or install
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 1 1 of 30

• Product scrapped
• Rework needed
4.7.9 Severity Ranking
4.7.9.1 Potential effects of failure shall be ranked for severity in terms of their impact using a 1 to 1 0 number scale (see
Appendix E). When multiple potential effects of failure are listed in the same line of the PFMEA, the highest
severity shall be used as the severity ranking.
4.7.9.2 The severity ranking shall be assigned independently from the occurrence and the detection ranking. The
severity ranking itself cannot be changed without a change to the product design or functionality. When the
Severity ranking of a potential failure mode is 9 or 1 0, the failure mode and effect should be reviewed with the
design authority, regardless of the resulting Risk Priority Number (RPN).
Example: If a critical weld is in an inaccessible location and cannot easily be inspected the risk may be reduced by the
Design Authority moving the weld location to a more favorable position.
4.7.1 0 The Causes of Each Potential Failure Mode
4.7.1 0.1 The potential cause shall be identified for each potential failure mode. One potential failure mode may have
several different causes, each of which should be listed in separate PFMEA lines.
NOTE: To determine the need for control, the product and/or process characteristics that have an influence on the causes
of failure should be explored. If the occurrence and detection ranking is high and/or if the failure is severe these
product and/or process characteristics should be controlled.
4.7.1 1 Prevention and Detection Controls
4.7.1 1 .1 Prevention and detection process controls shall be identified and documented when developing the PFMEA.
NOTE 1 : Prevention controls are the recommended approach and have a high potential of reducing the occurrence of a
failure. Prevention controls such as error proofing the process, equipment maintenance, visual aids, machine
controls (e.g., machine monitoring of temperature levels) should be considered, but may not be applicable for
every cause and/or failure mode. When not applicable, the prevention controls column on the worksheet can be
left blank.
NOTE 2: Detection control may take place at the operation where the failure occurred or at subsequent operations.
Detection controls that encourage automated error detection/prevention to drive the process away from reliance
on manual methods are recommended (e.g., automatic gauging, removal and segregation of parts that are
incorrect size).
4.7.1 2 Occurrence Ranking
4.7.1 2.1 The likelihood of the cause of the failure shall be ranked for occurrence using a 1 to 1 0 number scale (see
Appendix E).
4.7.1 2.2 The occurrence ranking shall be assigned independently from the severity and the detection rankings.
4.7.1 3 Detection Ranking
4.7.1 3.1 The likelihood of detection of the failure shall be ranked using a 1 to 1 0 number scale (see Appendix E). This
shall take into account detection controls in place within the process.
4.7.1 3.2 The detection ranking shall be assigned independently from the severity and the occurrence ranking.
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 1 2 of 30

4.7.1 4 Risk Priority Number (RPN) and Prioritization

4.7.1 4.1 The RPN shall be calculated for each identified risk (i.e., for each unique failure mode and cause combination).
NOTE: Where a failure mode is identified as having multiple effects, causes and process control mechanisms the RPN for
each potential failure cause is calculated using the highest severity ranking, each potential cause occurrence
ranking and the lowest detection ranking for controls specific to each potential cause of failure identified .
4.7.1 4.2 The RPN shall be used to establish the priority of risk mitigation actions.
NOTE 1 : RPN thresholds should not be defined and used to determine whether action is taken or deferred, as each risk
should be considered independently.
NOTE 2: In addition to reviewing risks with a high RPN, it is recommended to review risks with individually high severity,
occurrence or detection rankings in order to mitigate product quality escapes.
4.7.1 5 Recommended Action(s)
4.7.1 5.1 Recommended actions needed to prevent or mitigate risks identified shall be established and recorded within
the PFMEA.
4.7.1 5.2 Responsibility and target completion dates for accepted recommended actions shall be established and
recorded within the PFMEA.
4.7.1 5.3 RPN shall be re-established following the closure of recommended actions (see 4.5.2).
NOTE: The implemented actions should be verified as effective prior to revising the RPN.
4.7.1 6 Key Characteristics (KCs)
Get more FREE standards from Standard Sharing Group and our chats
4.7.1 6.1 The PFMEA shall be used to identify process KCs through RPN or Severity x Occurrence as defined by
customer requirement and/or organizational policy.
NOTE: Product KCs are identified by the customer or through Design Risk Analysis.
4.7.1 6.2 Both product and process KCs shall be recorded in the PFMEA (i.e., by using the “Classification” column in the
PFMEA template; see Appendix F).
4.8 Control Plan
4.8.1 Inputs to developing a Control Plan shall include the following (when available):
• Product KCs (including customer defined KCs)
• Process KCs
• PFMEA
• PFD
• Measurement System Analysis (refer to AS1 3003)
4.8.2 Outputs from the development of a Control Plan shall include:
• Control Plan aligned to the PFD and listing the controls as identified within the PFMEA
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 1 3 of 30

4.8.3 The Control Plan shall be prepared and applied as early as possible during process development.
NOTE: The Control Plan should place emphasis on pro-active controls at the point of manufacture. Good manufacturing
practice should consider the following:
• Control the process inputs to obtain the desired product outputs
• Employ prevention rather than detection (e.g., use of error-proofing instead of operator dependent work or
inspection)
• Verify output at the earliest possible operation/step within the process
4.8.4 The Control Plan shall comply with the following (refer to AS91 45):
• List the product and process characteristics to be monitored, during the manufacturing process, along with any
required control methods
NOTE 1 : Control methods typically include but are not limited to: Variable or attribute Statistical Process Control and/or
inspection, mistake-proofing (automated and nonautomated), life usage control, first piece check, test piece
evaluation and sampling plans (where these are acceptable to the customer).
• Include and indicate all product and process KCs and CIs defined by the customer and the organization
• Specify the reaction plan to be invoked when the process becomes unstable or a failure occurs
NOTE 2: A reaction plan can include some or all of the following:
• Containment plan (identify and secure product made since last good check)
• Investigation
• Problem solving (adjust process, tooling and gauges as required)
• Verification of corrective action
4.8.5 As a minimum, the Control Plan shall include the following information:
• Organization's name/site designation
• Part number(s)
• Part name/description
• Engineering change level (i.e., revision level)
• Phase covered (e.g., preproduction, production)
• Process name/operation description
• Operation/process step number where the control action is performed
• Product or process related KCs and CIs
• Product or process specification/tolerance
• Evaluation/measurement technique
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 1 4 of 30

• Sample size and frequency

• Control method, including error-proofing
• Reaction plan
4.8.6 Controls and reaction plans specified within the Control Plan shall be documented within a Work Instruction and/or
Inspection Plan.
NOTE: An Inspection Plan is complementary to the Control Plan and is typically the document used by process operators.
4.8.7 The organization shall use the Control Plan template as defined within this standard, or one with equivalent
content (see Appendix G). Any deviation to this shall be approved by the customer.
NOTE: A typical worked example of a Control Plan has been included in this standard for reference (see Appendix C,
Figure C6).
5. NOTES
5.1 Revision Indicator
A change bar (I) located in the left margin is for the convenience of the user in locating areas where technical revisions,
not editorial changes, have been made to the previous issue of this document. An (R) symbol to the left of the document
title indicates a complete revision of the document, including technical revisions. Change bars and (R) are not used in
original publications, nor in documents that contain editorial changes only.

PREPARED BY SAE COMMITTEE G-22, AEROSPACE ENGINE SUPPLIER QUALITY (AESQ)

Get more FREE standards from Standard Sharing Group and our chats
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 1 5 of 30
APPENDIX A - STANDARDS RELATIONSHIPS
The SAE G-22 Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) Committee is established as a Technical Committee under the
SAE Aerospace Council to develop, specify, maintain and promote quality standards specific to the Aerospace Engine
supply chain. The Aerospace Standards in the AS1 30XX series are intended to be used together and in conjunction with
other key industry quality standards to provide a comprehensive suite of interrelated quality standards that reduce
customer specifics and integrate industry best practice with aerospace engine unique elements.
Given the stringent quality requirements and advanced manufacturing processes and technologies inherent to the
complexity and criticality of the components involved, it is essential to integrate not only this specific standard but also
understand how it relates to other industry standards in order to implement it efficiently and effectively. The following link
provides the latest documentation detailing this linkage and interconnectivity of requirements documentation:
SAE G-22 AESQ Standard Interconnection Overview
The SAE G-22 AESQ Technical Committee welcomes and encourages every user with any comments, questions, and/or
suggestions with this or any other G-22 AESQ Aerospace Standard to provide feedback using the following link:
SAE G-22 AESQ Technical Committee User Feedback
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 1 6 of 30
APPENDIX B - ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
The following checklist is designed to assist in assessing the quality of implementation of this standard and the user’s
compliance to key requirements. An editable format is available through the following link. User’s should download the
document each time they plan an assessment, as the website version will have the latest improvements incorporated from
user and customer feedback.
G-22 AESQ AS1 3004 Assessment Checklist

Get more FREE standards from Standard Sharing Group and our chats
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 1 7 of 30
APPENDIX C - CASE STUDY - MACHINED DETAILS AND ASSEMBLY
The following case study describes a simple scenario with a machined Fuel-Air Bracket that forms part of an assembly.
The Fuel-Air Bracket is supplied by a first tier supplier. Assembly of the Air Line and Fuel Tube to the Fuel-Air Bracket is
completed at the engine manufacturer following final assembly. Figure C1 displays the final assembly and Figure C2
provides the finished Fuel-Air Bracket part drawing after machining. The drawing has the characteristics numbered in
balloons, some of which are identified as KCs.

Figure C1 - Final assembly

Support

Air Line Adapter

Fuel Tube

Fuel-Air Bracket

Figure C2 - Fuel-Air Bracket

SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 1 8 of 30

Design record: Two of the holes in the Fuel-Air Bracket retain pipes with an interference fit and carry air and fuel,
respectively. Each of the characteristics of the product are numbered one to five, characteristics four
identified as KCs.

and five are 
The following is a simple illustration of why part specific PFMEAs are beneficial:
A part has two holes drilled by a common process which however have two distinct purposes. The first hole is an air hole
with little impact if nonconforming. The second hole carries fuel to a critical part and is essential for continued operation
and has a major impact to the product function if nonconforming.
While the two holes are drilled by a common process they each need individual consideration when evaluating the risks
and when determining the appropriate mitigating actions. The mitigating actions may therefore be different in proportion to
the risks. In this instance the process details shall not be read across without careful consideration of the differences.

Get more FREE standards from Standard Sharing Group and our chats
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 1 9 of 30
CASE STUDY - FUEL AIR BRACKET PFD

Process Flow Diagram 1

Figure C3 - Case study process flow diagram - format 1

NOTE: The visual representation symbols are not always used in this type of example.It is usual to have specific features referenced in the Product KC column.
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 20 of 30
Process Flow Diagram 2

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

Process M21 345 Fuel- Air Bracket
Prototype - Pre-Launch - Production - X Date (Orig.) 07/24/20xx
Date (Rev.) N/C
Key Contact Process Engineer Core Team Operator, Process Engineer, Quality Engineer, Operation MGR
Customer Approval Date 08/24/20xx
PROCESS
OPERATION STEP INPUTS CLASSIFICATION OUTPUTS CONTROLS MISTAKE PROOFING REMARKS
DESCRIPTION

1 00 - CNC Drill -Set-Up 1 Set-Up Quality Control Record (Router) CNC Drill with Program Loaded Scan bar-code on batch
card
Work Instructions
NC Program List
CNC Drill

Tools loaded in correct positon in drill tool

1 00 - CNC Drill -Set-Up 2 Set-Up CNC Drill with Program Loaded Visual
magazine
Pre set tools
Work Instructions
Quality Control Record (Router)

1 00 - CNC Drill - Load

3 Load Material CNC Drill Billet loaded correctly Visual
Material
Part fixturing
Billet
Work Instructions
GetQuality
more ControlFREE
Record (Router)
standards from Standard Sharing Group and our chats
1 00 - CNC Drill - Drill Holes 4 Drill Holes Billet loaded correctly Air port diameter CMM

Quality Control Record (Router) Air port position tolerance CMM

Ballooned Drawing Surface finish Visual
Work Instructions KC Fuel port diameter CMM
Drill Press properly set-up KC Fuel port position tolerance CMM
Quality Control Record (Router) signed off
Inspection Gages Visual
with quantity inspected
Quality Control Record (Router) signed off
Trained Operator Visual
with quantity accepted/repaired/scrapped

Note: Detail omitted from these steps to aid clarity for the standard

Figure C4 - Case study process flow diagram - format 2

Key Learning Point(s):
• The PFD included within the example has been expanded to detail each significant operation step (e.g., drilling) which will aid failure mode identification in the
PFMEA and setting up appropriate controls. Care should be taken to identify and consider all activites which could occur within the operation, although it is not
a requirement to document all steps. Observing the process and discussing with the shop-floor team is an essential task in identifying all the relevant activities.
• Any KCs which are included within the design records should be identified and carried through to the PFMEA.
• Identification of inputs, outputs and control methods on the PFD are seen as good practice, but are not a requirement of this standard.
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 21 of 30
CASE STUDY - FUEL AIR BRACKET PFMEA

The PFD is used to develop the PFMEA. The PFMEA evaluates each of the process steps and the effects of different nonconformances that can be created.
Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA)
Prototype - Pre-Launch- Production - X Key Contact / Phone Process Engineer Date (Orig.) 07/24/20xx Date (Rev.) N/C

Part Number M21 345 Core Team Operator, Process Engineer, Quality Engineer, Operation MGR Customer Approval Date 08/1 5/20xx

Note: This is not a complete PFMEA document, as several process steps, failure modes, effects and controls have been omitted from this example to aid clarity for the standard. All process steps and relevant failure modes, associated effects
and controls would be shown within a typical FMEA for this product

Current Process Action Results

Classification
Responsibility

Severity
Process Function/ Potential Potential Effect(s) of Failure

Occurrence

Occurrence
Operation Step Requirements Potential Cause(s) of Failure RPN Recommended Action & Target

Detection
Detection
Actions Taken

Severity
Description Failure Mode Prevention Detection Completion Date RPN
Controls Controls
Completion Date

Correct tools loaded

Part Leaks, resulting in fuel leak leading to fire, explosion or safety External company contacted, solution identified
in position to drill to Visual inspection (8) Implement functionality to automatically
1 00 - CNC Drill -Set- hazard (1 0) Incorrect drill loaded into tool Laser tool check prior to machining Process Engineer and target date for implementation set
2 Set-up CNC Drill size Over High Limit 10 KC 2 In process inspection and 6 1 20 stop the machining operation following the 10 1 6 60
Up Reject Sent to Customer (8) magazine operation 05/1 5/20xx (06/02/20xx). Action to be closed 09/25/20xx
(0.375 in +0.000 / - Final inspection with CMM (6) failure of a laser tool check.
Scrap at plant w/o late delivery (6) following verification of implemented solution.
0.002 in)

External company contacted, solution identified

Reject Sent to Customer, unable to assemble tube or adaptor at Visual inspection (8) Implement functionality to automatically
1 00 - CNC Drill -Set- Under Low Incorrect drill loaded into tool Laser tool check prior to machining Process Engineer and target date for implementation set
2 engine assembly facility (8) 8 KC 2 In process inspection and 6 96 stop the machining operation following the 8 1 6 48
Up Limit magazine operation 05/1 5/20xx (06/02/20xx). Action to be closed 09/25/20xx
Reworkable but with impact to delivery (6) Final inspection with CMM (6) failure of a laser tool check.
following verification of implemented solution.

Operator cleans chips from fixture prior

Visual inspection (8)
Reject Sent to Customer, unable to assemble tube or adaptor at Part moved in Fixture due to to loading Implement automated fixturing techniques
1 00 - CNC Drill - Drill Holes to correct Holes out of In process inspection and Process Engineer Design activity in work - new Occurrence
3 Set-up CNC Drill engine assembly facility (8) 8 KC cutting chips preventing part 3 6 1 44 that flush chips from fixture prior to part 8 1 6 48
Load Material location position Final inspection of hole position with CMM 03/25/20xx estimated to be 2 06/1 5/20xx
Scrap at plant w/o late delivery (6) seating properly Operator visual inspection of fixture being loaded
(6)
contamination prior to loading

Fixture box protection in place on

Visual inspection (8)
location points
Part incorrectly located in fixture In process inspection and
8 KC 2 6 96
due to fixture damage Final inspection of hole position with CMM
Operator visual inspection of fixture for
(6)
damage prior to loading

Reject Sent to Customer, unable to assemble tube or adaptor at Tool life limited to 1 0 parts / tool Update - talked to vendor of CNC machine and
1 00 - CNC Drill - Drill Drill Holes Holes not Implement tool torque limiter to stop Process Engineer
4 Drill Holes engine assembly facility (8) 8 KC Worn/Damaged drill Laser tool check prior to machining 3 In Process and Final Visual Inspection (7) 7 1 68 currently identifying means of implementing 8 1 2 16
Holes Completely Thru Drilled Thru machining operation prior to tool breakage 03/1 5/20xx
Reworkable but with impact to delivery (6) operation monitoring system on existing machines

Change CNC program to lower

occurrence by building an auto-deburring
Deburr - Fuel-Air cycle into the drilling Operation 1 00-5 Process Engineer Program Modified
1 50 - Deburr 1 Remove Burrs Over Deburred Scrap at plant w/o late delivery (6) 6 Manually dependent process None 3 In Process and Final Visual Inspection (7) 7 1 26 6 1 7 42
Bracket 09/1 5/20xx 09/1 5/20xx
Consider implementation of robot
deburring.

Change CNC program to lower

occurrence by building an auto-deburring
Under cycle into the drilling Operation 1 00-5 Process Engineer Program Modified
Reworkable but with impact to delivery (6) 6 Manually dependent process None 2 In Process and Final Visual Inspection (7) 7 84 6 1 7 42
Deburred 07/24/20xx 09/1 5/20xx
Consider implementation of robot
deburring.

Visual check of part at final inspection

Outside Processing - (without visual acceptance standards in
Part not Reject Sent to Customer (8) Process flow step missed (part Operator stamp required on each step
200 - Hard Anodize 1 Fuel-Air Bracket; Hard Anodize Part 8 1 place) 7 56
anodized Reworkable but with impact to delivery (6) not sent to be anodized) in the router
Anodize Compliance check with Certificate of
Conformance
Manually dependent process,
Cleaning - Fuel-Air Part not Operator stamp required on each step Visual assessment of part cleanliness in final
250 - Cleaning 1 Clean Part Reworkable but with impact to delivery (6) 6 process not adequately 1 7 42
Bracket cleaned in the router inspection (7)
completed
Regular change of cleaning solution Visual assessment of part cleanliness in final
6 Cleaning solution contaminated 2 7 84
every 1 00 parts or 1 month. inspection (7)

Implement automated part marking system

with data pulled directly out of database
Incorrect Data
Mark Parts - Fuel-Air Reject sent to customer (8) Marking information entered Visual confirmation of marked data in final avoiding the need for manual transcription. Process Engineer
300 - Part Marking 1 Mark Parts per Print Marked on the 8 None 3 7 1 68 Cell procured and being installed 06/01 /20xx 8 1 3 24
Bracket Reworkable without impact to delivery (4) manually - Incorrect entry inspection (7) Station to include automated in station 06/01 /20xx
Part
control (scanning and confirmation of
barcode)

Marking not in Reject sent to customer (8) Part not located correctly in Visual inspection of mark position using Implement location fixture on marking Process Engineer
8 None 3 7 1 68 Procured and being installed 05/1 5/20xx 8 1 7 56
correct location Reworkable without impact to delivery (4) marking machine reference overlay template (7) machine. 05/1 5/20xx

Parts not
Pack Parts - Fuel-Air Pack parts for Insufficient protective material Process Engineer New packaging introduced.
350 - Packing 1 packed Part damaged in transit, Damaged part delivered to customer (8) 8 None 2 Visual confirmation of packaging (7) 7 112 Implement molded polystyrene protection. 8 1 7 56
Bracket Shipping included in box 09/30/20xx 09/30/20xx
properly

Figure C5 - Case study PFMEA

SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 22 of 30

Key Learning Point(s):

• The PFMEA included within the example has been expanded to detail each significant operation step (e.g., drilling) to
aid failure mode identification and setting up appropriate controls. Care should be taken to identify and consider all
activites which could occur within the operation.
• To simplify the identification of failure modes a requirements column has been included in the example to identify the
required outputs of each process step (e.g., drill hole to size, 0.375 inch + 0.000 inch/- 0.002 inch).
• Failure modes should be directly related to how the operation/step may fail to achieve the requirement (e.g., hole over
high limit).
• Effects can be related to both manufacturing and the customer, each of which may have different severities. It is
important to identify all likely effects.
• There are often multiple causes of each failure mode, care should be taken to identify all relevant causes from multiple
sources (eg., brainstorming, experience, data).
• When identifying controls and actions emphasis should first be placed on identifiying controls which prevent the cause
of the failure mode. If the cause can’t be prevented relevant means of detection should be considered.
• When the prevention and detection control field is blank, this indicates that the control method is either not applicable,
not in place or not known.
• Recommended actions to reduce RPNs should be listed together with a responsible party and a target date. The
status of these actions should be regularly monitored for effective closure.
• The PFMEA should be updated whenever new failure modes or causes are identified. For example if nonconformance
is identified then the
GetPFMEA should standards
more FREE be updated from
to include the failure
Standard mode,
Sharing causeand
Group andour
appropriate
chats controls.
• Failure modes can be stored and re-used to make the PFMEA activity more efficient. Each failure mode should be re-
assessed for effect, as these may change dependant up on the purpose and application of the feature in the product.
NOTE 1 : Reuseable failure modes may be known as “Unit” or “Library” failure modes.
NOTE 2: Commercially available software is available to aid the efficient preparation of PFMEA and can greatly assist
with the reuse of “Unit” or “Library” failure modes.
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 23 of 30

CASE STUDY - FUEL AIR BRACKET CONTROL PLAN

The Control Plan captures the needed controls identified within the PFMEA, together with the product and process KCs and measurement techniques in line with
AS1 3003.
Prototype - Pre-Launch- Production - X Key Contact / Phone Quality Eng ineer Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
07/24/20xx N/A
Core Team
Part Number Customer Approval Date
M21 345 Operator, Process Eng ineer, Quality Eng ineer, Operation MGR 07/24/20xx

Part Name / Description

Fuel- Air Bracket
Operation Step Process Function / Machine, Device, Characteristics Methods

Classification
Description Jig, Tools For
Mfg.
Product/Process Specification/ Tolerance Evaluation/ Measurement Sample Reaction Plan
# Product Process Technique Control Method
Size Freq

Note: Several process steps, and controls are om itted from this exam ple to aid clarity for the standard. A Control Plan will usual ly cover all process steps and relevant and controls.

Inform supervisor if tool life does not produce more than 5 parts
before replacement required - stop operation and inform
1 00 - CNC Drill - Review tool for wear, dull edges, chips, Life / Usage supervisor.
4 Drill Holes CNC Drill Tool Life Visual Inspection of Tool 1 00% Continuous
Drill Holes etc. Control
If tool life produces 5 or more parts before replacement required
- replace tool and re-verify first piece to requirements
If results violate run chart rules but is with product specification,
.375+.002-.000 adjust process.
1 00 - CNC Drill - Control Limit - 0.376+/- 0.0005 Fuel Hole Chart results on
4 Drill Holes CNC Drill 4 Fuel Hole KC CMM 1 00% Continuous
Drill Holes Diameter SPC Run Chart
Diameter If results are outside product specification stop operation and
launch plant non-conformance process.
If results violate run chart rules but is with product specification,
adjust process.
1 00 - CNC Drill - .375+.002-.000 True Positon to .002 at Max Material Chart results on
4 Drill Holes CNC Drill 5 KC CMM 1 00% Continuous
Drill Holes Fuel Hole Position Condition SPC Run Chart
If results are outside product specification stop operation and
launch plant non-conformance process.
If cleaning solution identified as being older than 1 month or has
Cleaning; Clean Cleaning Cleaning Solution Cleaning solution must not be in use for Visual Inspection of Log Cleaning station
250 - Cl ea ni ng 1 1 Start of shift been used for in excess of 1 00 parts, flush cleaning station and
Fuel Holes Station Condition more than 1 month Book log-book.
replace cleaning solution.

Figure C6 - Case study Control Plan

Key Learning Point(s):
• Linkage between the PFMEA and Control Plan should be established by operation numbers.
• It is not a requirement of this standard to document all steps within a process in the Control Plan.
• It should be clear in the Control Plan what is to be controlled, how often and what to do if a problem is encountered.
• The identified controls within the Control Plan should flow through to shop-floor documentation (e.g., work instructions, routers).
 SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 24 of 30
APPENDIX D - LINKAGES BETWEEN PFD, PFMEA, AND CONTROL PLAN
Link between PFD - PFMEA - Control Plan

Operation Operation Incoming sources of PFD Product Process

# / Description variation (ISV) KC KC
Process
Step
Description of operation Input material Symbol What is expected Characteristics which
PFD

performed variation affects the out of the process affect the outcome
outcome of Process
Characteristics which
Product change with time only
characteristics or need to be mentioned
previous operation

Operation Process Potential Failure Potential Potential Current

# / Function/ Mode Effect(s) of Cause(s) of process

Recommended
Process Description Failure Failure Controls

Classification
Step

Occurrence

Detection
Severity

Action
RPN
Operation Negative of Think in 4 1 .Prevent

Key Characteristics
description product ways: cause
How bad is it?
PFMEA

characteristics 2.Detect

How often? From in-process

1 .No function cause

rejection of similar process

2.Degrated 3.Detect
3.Intermittent failure
4.Unintended mode
From ISV and
Get more FREE standards from Standard Sharing Group and our chats
process
characteristic

Operation Process Name/ Machine, Characteristics Classification Product / Evaluation Sample

# / Descripti on Fixture, Tools Process Measurement

Control Method
Reaction plan
Process for MFG / Specification Technique
Step Measurement
Control Plan

No Product Process Size Frequency

Machine Tolerance of
used the product &
information process
characteristic
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 25 of 30
APPENDIX E - PFMEA RANKING CRITERIA FOR SEVERITY - OCCURRENCE - DETECTION
Severity Evaluation Criteria
Severity of Effect on Product Severity of Effect on Process
Effect Ranking Effect
(Customer Effect) (M anufacturing / Assembly Effect)
Pote nti al fai l ure mode affe cts safe ope rati on and/or i nvol ve s
Fai l ure to me e t safe ty 10 Fai l ure to me e t safe ty May e ndange r ope rator, machi ne or asse mbl y without warni ng.
noncompl i ance wi th re gul ati ons without warni ng
and/or re gul atory and/or re gul atory
Pote nti al fai l ure mode affe cts safe ope rati on and/or i nvol ve s
re qui re me nts 9 re qui re me nts May e ndange r ope rator, machi ne or asse mbl y with warni ng.
noncompl i ance wi th re gul ati ons with warni ng
Loss of pri mary functi on ( product i nope rabl e , doe s not affe ct safe 100% of product may have to be scrappe d. Li ne shutdown or stop
8 Maj or di srupti on
ope rati on) shi p
Loss or de gradati on of
pri mary functi on De gradati on of pri mary functi on ( product ope rabl e , but at a re duce d A proti on of the producti on run may have to be scrappe d. De vi ati on
7 Si gni fi cant di srupti on
l e ve l of pe rformance ) from pri mary proce ss; de cre ase d l i ne spe e d or adde d manpowe r.

Loss of se condary functi on ( product ope rabl e but se rvi ce l i fe gre atl y 100% of producti on run may have to be re worke d off l i ne and
6
reduce d, conve ni e nce i te m( s) i nope rabl e , custome r di ssati sfi e d) acce pte d
Loss or de gradati on of
Mode rate di srupti on
se condary functi on De gradati on of se condary functi on ( product ope rabl e but
A proporti on of the producti on run may have to be re worke d off
appe arance affe cte d, conve ni e nce i te m( s) ope rabl e at a re duce d 5
l i ne and acce pte d
l e ve l , custome r di ssati sfi e d)
Appe arance , fi t and fi ni sh type i te ms do not conform, de fe ct 100% of producti on run may have to be re -worke d i n stati on be fore
4
noti ce d by most of the custome rs ( > 75%) i t i s proce sse d
Mode rate di srupti on
Appe arance , fi t and fi ni sh type i te ms do not conform, de fe ct A proporti on of the producti on run may have to be re worke d i n-
Annoyance 3
noti ce d by about hal f of the custome rs ( 50%) stati on be fore i t i s proce sse d
Appe arance , fi t and fi ni sh type i te ms do not conform, de fe ct
2 Mi nor di srupti on Sl i ght i nconve ni e nce to proce ss, ope rati on or ope rator
noti ce d by di scri mi nati ng custome rs ( <25%)
N o e ffe ct N o di sce rnabl e e ffe ct 1 N o e ffe ct N o di sce rni bl e e ffe ct

Occurrence Evaluation Criteria

Proce ss PPM Li kel i hood of Cause Ti me -Base d Li kel i hood of Cause Ti me-Base d Exampl e
Ranki ng De scri pti on
( AI AG Re fe rence ) Exampl e Low vol u me prod u cti on
≥ 1 pe r
Ve ry Hi gh: Persi ste nt Fai l u re
10 500, 000 PPM 1 in 2 occurrence 100% of prod u cti on ≥ 1 pe r occu rre nce pe r shi ft
( Fai l u re i s al most i nevi tabl e )
pe r shi ft
Ve ry Hi gh: Persi ste nt Fai l u re ≥1 per
9 ( Fai l u re occur al most as ofte n as 50,000 PPM 1 i n 20 occurrence 50% of prod ucti on ≥1 per occurrence per day
not) pe r day
Hi gh: Freq ue nt fai l u re s ( Re peate d ≥1 per 2-3
8 20,000 PPM 1 i n 50 20% of prod ucti on ≥1 per 2-3 days
fai l u re s) days
Hi gh: Fre qu e nt fai l ure s ( Fai l ure s ≥1 per
7 10,000 PPM 1 i n 100 10% of prod ucti on ≥1 per Week
occu r ofte n) Wee k
Hi gh Mod e rate : Occasi onal ≥1 per 2
6 5,000 PPM 1 i n 200 5% of prod ucti on 1 pe r month
fai l ure s we e ks
Mod erate : Occasi onal fai l ure s ≥1 per
5 1,000 PPM 1 i n 1, 000 0. 5% of prod ucti on 2 pe r ye ar
( mi nor proporti ons) qu arter
Mod erate Low: I nfreq u ent ≥1 per hal f-
4 100 PPM 1 i n 10,000 0. 1% of prod ucti on 1 pe r ye ar
fai l ure s ye ar
3 Low: Re l ati vel y few fai l ure s. 10 PPM 1 i n 100,000 ≥1 per year 0. 05% of prod ucti on 1 per 5 years
Low: Fai l u res are few and far
2 1 PPM 1 i n 1, 000,000 <1 pe r ye ar 0. 01% of prod ucti on 1 per 10 ye ars
be twe e n ( i sol ate d i nci d ents)
Re mote: Fai l u re i s el i mi nate d Less than 0. 01% of
1 <1 per 10 ye ars
thru Pre ve nti ve Control Zero Ze ro N e ve r prod ucti on
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 26 of 30

Detection Evaluation Criteria

Ranki ng Li kel i hood of Detetecti on by Process Control - Cate gory Li ke l i hood of Detetecti on by Process Control - Cri teri a
10 Absol ute Unce rtai nty N o curre nt proce ss control ; Cannot de te ct or compl i ance anal ysi s not pe rforme d
9 Di ffi cul t to De te ct De fe ct ( Fai l ure Mode ) and/or Error ( Cause ) i s not e asi l y de te cte d ( e . g. Random audi ts)
De fe ct ( Fai l ure Mode ) de te cti on post-proce ssi ng by ope rator through vi sual /tacti l e /audi tabl e me ans
8 De fe ct De te cti on Post Proce ssi ng
wi th no boundary sampl e s
De fe ct ( fai l ure Mode ) de te cti on i n-stati on by ope rator through vi sual /tacti l e /audi abl e me ans or post-
7 De fe ct De te cti on at Source proce ssi ng through use of attri bute gaugi ng ( go/no-go, manual torque che ck/cl i cke r wre nch, e tc. , )
wi th no boundary sampl e s
De fe ct ( fai l ure Mode ) de te cti on post-proce ssi ng by ope rator through use of vari abl e gaugi ng or i n-
6 De fe ct De te cti on Post Proce ssi ng stati on by ope rator through use of attri bute gaugi ng ( go/no-go, manual torque che ck/cl i cke r wre nch,
e tc. , ) wi th boundary sampl e s
De fe ct ( Fai l ure Mode ) or Error ( Cause ) de te cti on i n-stati on by ope rator through use of vari abl e
5 De fe ct De te cti on at Source gaugi ng or by automate d control s that wi l l de te ct di scre pant part and noti fy ope rator ( l i ght, buzze r,
e tc. , ) . Gaugi ng pe rforme d on se tup and fi rst-pi e ce che ck( for se t-up cause s onl y)
De fe ct ( Fai l ure Mode ) de te cti on post-proce ssi ng by automate d control s that wi l l de te ct di scre pant
4 De fe ct De te cti on Post Proce ssi ng
part and l ock part to pre ve nt furthe r proce ssi ng
De fe ct ( Fai l ure Mode ) de te cti on i n-stati on by automate d control s that wi l l de te ct di scre pant part and
3 De fe ct De te cti on at Source
automati cal l y l ock part i n stati on to pre ve nt furthe r proce ssi ng
Error ( Cause ) de te cti on i n-stati on by automate d control s that wi l l de te ct e rror and pre ve nt di scre pant
2 Error De te cti on and/or De fe ct Pre ve nti on
part from be i ng made
1 De te cti on not appl i cabl e Error ( Cause ) pre ve nti on as a re sul t of fi xture de si gn, machi ne de si gn or part de si gn

Get more FREE standards from Standard Sharing Group and our chats
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 27 of 30
APPENDIX F - PROCESS FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (PFMEA) TEMPLATE
The following form is a Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) template. An editable format is available
through the following link. Users should download the form before each use as the website version will have the latest
improvements incorporated from user and customer feedback.
G-22 AESQ AS1 3004 PFMEA TEMPLATE
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 28 of 30
APPENDIX G - CONTROL PLAN TEMPLATE
The following form is a Control Plan template. An editable format is available through the following link. Users should
download the form before each use as the website version will have the latest improvements incorporated from user and
customer feedback.
G-22 AESQ AS1 3004 CONTROL PLAN TEMPLATE

Get more FREE standards from Standard Sharing Group and our chats
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 29 of 30
APPENDIX H - PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM (PFD) TEMPLATES
The following forms are PFD templates. An editable format is available through the following link. Users should download
the form before each use as the website version will have the latest improvements incorporated from user and customer
feedback.
G-22 AESQ AS1 3004 PFD TEMPLATE 1
G-22 AESQ AS1 3004 PFD TEMPLATE 2
SAE INTERNATIONAL AS1 3004™ Page 30 of 30
APPENDIX I - ACRONYM LOG

Acronym Definition
AESQ Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality
CI Critical Item
DFMEA Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
FMEA Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
KC Key Characteristic
MSA Measurement System s Analysis
PFD Process Flow Diagram
PFMEA Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
RPN Risk Priority Number

Get more FREE standards from Standard Sharing Group and our chats