The component may be able to float within a tolerance of 1/8 of an inch to the welded frame, but the mounting hole pattern may require a.030 tolerance from feature to feature. Both the sheet metal and the welded frame tolerancing examples can easily be achieved with composite positional tolerancing (Fig. Drawing dimension stated: 2.00' +/.010' then an acceptable part would measure between 1.990' to 2.010' for that dimension. As engineering progressed and parts became more complicated, a new method of implementing tolerances was created; Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing, or GD&T.
I have recently had an internal discussion at my company over whether or not to include Basic dimensions in an AS9102 First Article. The answer is yes you do.
Pure and simple. To do otherwise is not complying with the AS9201 Standard. Basic Dimensions are part of the design characteristics on the drawing.I read in one post 'BASIC dims have no tolerances by themselves.
They are nominals. Measuring their location directly violates the design intent and provides no useful information within the context of their design intent.
A direct measurement of a BASIC dim does nothing to say if the feature is in tolerance. If one feels it is necessary to measure directly, they need to invoke some other method of tolerancing instead of BASIC.' I'm not sure why that person stated that, but measuring them directly is what you need to do to find Position.
True that are nominals but so are that non-Basic dimensions. If I have a part that has a Hole and uses Cartesian dimensions showing the Hole Diameter, the X location and Y Location with ± tolerances everyone agrees that we record the Hole Diameter, the X and Y dimensions on the FAI Plan and measure directly from their respective surfaces on the FAI report. Fine we all agree on that principle. Why does anyone think it's different with geometric tolerancing., Document the Hole Diameter with a ± tolerance, Basic Dimensions for X & Y direction, and Position tolerance Feature Control Frame.
Yes the X & Y BASIC dimensions are theoretical however they ARE directly measured from the DATUM features called out in the Feature Control Frame. Those actual dimensions are recorded and compared to the basic dimensions to find the delta from each X & Y Basic Dimension (True Position).
The outcome after the position calculation is called Position (Actual Position from the theoretical True Position in a diametrical circle/cylinder). So the Hole is measured DIRECTLY and related back to the DATUM Schema in a Cartesian manner (can be Polar too). The Basic dimensions have a tolerance when combined but not on there own.
Both measurement directions must be ascertained to compute the actual Position within the Tolerance specified in the Feature Control Frame.There are more cases of Basic Dimension use per ASME Y14.5-2009 that can be discussed. For instance, Basic Dimensions used to locate DATUM targets. Best Practice is to include those in the FAI to show the FAI approver that they were achieved by using whatever device to achieve those Basic dimensions( like Gage Blocks).
Simply record the dimension you created with the gage block that you created the DATUM Targets. Now some may come back and say that's redundant but I can tell you it will always pass and external audit without question.
Not putting characteristics that are on the Drawing (excluding Reference Dimensions per AS9102) can lead to auditors asking questions and you having to justify why that they may or may not accept. RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Aerospace) 1 Sep 17 05:39. If the argument is getting reports accepted by auditors who don't understand Dimensioning and Tolerancing but think they do, then reporting raw data is what you are doing and no doubt will be accepted. Just like in school, graders often like it when people show their work.On the side of those who do understand D&T, there's no point to it. If the inspector can't do the job correctly then it doesn't matter if they do show their work and it's a distraction from evaluating the product variations.Basic dimensions can't be measured. They are, at inspection, set-up instructions and the errors in them are in the measuring equipment, not the part.
They are used as a source of comparison. It's only required to measure the deviation of a feature from e.g. Its true position, et al, based on the basic dimensions.The entire point of basic dimensions was to separate the nominal dimension from the tolerance and to allow the tolerance to be coupled to the feature size, as required, thereby allowing the creation of functional gauges.Let's say two holes are 5.000 from each other perpendicular to a datum feature reference, but the first is 1.000 away and perpendicular to the same datum feature referenced in the feature control frame that controls them both.Measuring the distance (5.000) between the holes is useless. What's important is the difference between 6.000 inches and the actual distance from the datum simulator/datum feature.IOW one would indicate the CMM on the datum reference/datum simulator and set the start value in that direction to -1.000 and -6.000 to measure each of the holes, respectively. Only the deviation is measured.
Since allowable deviations are typically diametral or width, the measured deviation would be doubled for the report. For X, Y conditions, the measured deviations can be combined to produce diametral values or the CMM could be switched to polar measurements to get the radial deviation directly.If you feel like reporting raw measurements, that's OK. But the measured values aren't the 'basic' ones and can be the wrong distance/dimension to inspect at all. A linear pattern of 100 holes on a 1.000 spacing rarely means making 99 measurements of 1.000 nominal.This sort of reporting and getting acceptance from unskilled auditors is more in line with.At the end I am unsurprised that SAE fails to include detailed guidance and that examples from aerospace companies include in their AS9102 reporting requirements, pictures based on what looks like the 197x and earlier versions of Y14.5.For example, from GoodrichI do see a document about this which includes the following :F11. Question:Does 'Reference Characteristic' (as defined in 9102) include both, 'Basic' dimensions and 'Reference' dimensions (as defined in ASME Y14.5-2009)?F11. Answer:The 9102 definition of Reference Characteristic is; 'The characteristics that are used for information only” or to show relationship.
These are dimensions without tolerances and refer to other dimensions on the drawing.' Both basic andreference dimensions fall under the definition of reference characteristics.This page is similar:(it has some delayed opening software.) 'For conformance assessment, there is no requirement to report measured values that correspond to basic dimensions.' (added) And this document:'GD&T characteristics and their measured/calculated values must be recorded in the FAI.
Basic dimensions may be omitted from the FAI.' RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Mechanical) 1 Sep 17 14:20.Document the Hole Diameter with a ± tolerance, Basic Dimensions for X & Y direction, and Position tolerance Feature Control Frame. Yes the X & Y BASIC dimensions are theoretical however they ARE directly measured from the DATUM features called out in the Feature Control Frame. Those actual dimensions are recorded and compared to the basic dimensions to find the delta from each X & Y Basic Dimension (True Position). The outcome after the position calculation is called Position (Actual Position from the theoretical True Position in a diametrical circle/cylinder). So the Hole is measured DIRECTLY and related back to the DATUM Schema in a Cartesian manner (can be Polar too).
The Basic dimensions have a tolerance when combined but not on there own. Both measurement directions must be ascertained to compute the actual Position within the Tolerance specified in the Feature Control Frame.This is not true.
You are not measuring the 'location' of the hole.ever. There is no such thing.
The hole must satisfy a prescribed state of its unrelated actual mating envelope, or a prescribed state of the hole surface.Reporting the location of a hole with XY coordinates is not rigorous. It's very poor, actually, and falls apart quite readily, even on nominally rectangular/orthagonal/planar parts. On more complex, free-form parts, it's laughable.You're speaking as if a position feature control frame is some upgraded method of XY tolerancing, when the geometric tolerance is actually a completely different concept.
RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Automotive) 1 Sep 17 15:26. Quote 3DDave 'The entire point of basic dimensions was to separate the nominal dimension from the tolerance and to allow the tolerance to be coupled to the feature size, as required, thereby allowing the creation of functional gauges.'
I disagree with the above quote. Frequently the point of basic dimensions and position tolerances is to ensure mating parts fit.
Many times the positional tolerances are too small to be accurately checked with functional gauges. One must use CMM or other measurement techniques. In the process of making the positional tolerance calculation, the CMM is measuring the X & Y basic dimensions as well as the hole diameter (or what ever the position tolerance is applied to) and then making the position calculation. I find it very useful to know the actual X & Y values especially when the position tolerance is exceeded and the part fails inspection. Knowing the actual location and size of the hole is very useful in figuring out how to correct the manufacturing process to make a good part. While I agree it's not necessary to 'show your work' to accept or reject the positional tolerance, every machine on our floor does it and it's very useful when trouble shooting bad parts.-The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Automotive) 1 Sep 17 15:59. Dgallup - I think I know what Dave was saying, but yes that statement isn't quite true.
In addition to the CMM point that you made, we could also consider profile tolerances: They use basic dims, but the purpose isn't 'to allow the tolerance to be coupled to the feature size, as required, thereby allowing the creation of functional gauges.' Considering all the other good stuff he wrote in the post, we'll let that technicality slideJohn-Paul BelangerCertified Sr. GD&T ProfessionalGeometric Learning Systems RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Mechanical) 1 Sep 17 16:04.
Nescius,I understand what you are saying, but I don't think dgallup was so far off in the weeds. Specially when you have to provide feedback for manufacturing.Quote:'how to correct the manufacturing process to make a good part.
While I agree it's not necessary to 'show your work' to accept or reject the positional tolerance, every machine on our floor does it and it's very useful when trouble shooting bad parts'And how do you know it is a single XY pair? Maybe XY pair down / up and another XY pair at cetrain length/depth is also used/reported.However, I don't think basic dimensions should be reported, but some details on the CMM report (beside if the feature is IN or is OUT) could be very usefull.RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Mechanical) 1 Sep 17 18:04. Per Evan J.Y14.45 is in process to be released shortly.' Y14.45 is not released yet. We're still working on it.One of the reasons that I'm asking the question about reporting basic dimensions is to assess whether this is a practice that should (or even can) be standardized. As GD&T 'purists', many of us have our preconceived opinion that basic dimensions are theoretically exact and therefore do not have measured values. At the same time, measured values of basic dimensions are often asked for and reported in industry (see JNieman's post above, for example).
I've heard of similar things going on at a lot of other companies as well.' Evan JaneshewskiAxymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.said:Quote: 'Yes, I'm a member of the Y14.5.1 subcommittee and also the Y14.45 subcommittee for Measurement Data Reporting.
Part of the reason that I participate in GD&T and CMM forums is to get a better idea of what challenges industry professionals are facing, and what their opinions are on various issues. A new revision of Y14.5.1 is in the committee review stage and Y14.45 is nearing completion as well. There should be public review drafts coming out later this year (I'll keep you posted). I'm hoping for lots of feedback from members of this forum, especially on the profile section.'
RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles. Hi Dave,I have read your initial response and want to point out that the passing an audit is ancillary and a perk to the actual requirement if AS9102 in recording Design Characteristics on a drawing. If an inspector doesn't understand GD&T they should not be a precision part inspector. You seem to believe that it does not matter whether the process of machining yields 3 of 6 holes are.003 in X and.004 in y and the other three +.003 in X and.003 in Y as long as they pass the Position tolerance of.010. Yes you have 3 holes in the lower left quadrant and 3 holes in the upper right quadrant.
The question is, is the process for making the holes and position satisfactory. The answer is yes for the FAI. However is the process in control? The answer is no. How will any Quality or Manufacturing Engineer be able to understand the process from the benchmarking of an FAI without the much needed information that shows the out of control condition?
Sorry I'm big on continual improvement from the baseline FAIRs. Basic dimensions in GD&T position tolerancing have tolerance. It's is an aggregate of the position tolerance from the Feature Control Frame. The Basic dimensions are a function of that tolerance just as the Diameter is a function when LMC or MMC is when specified.
Deviation from LMC or MMC has function to increase the tolerance in the Feature Control Frame thus changing it. I have seen where some inspectors actual were training to reduce the actual position by the factor of LMC or MMC and report the position as '0' if it reaches '0' or below. How would you respond to a actual position on the report as.000. I requested where in ASME Y14.5 it told them to do that.
They could find it. That's because it doesn't exist. What does exist, is an addition to the position tolerance (most people and books affectionately call 'Bonus Tolerance')Dave I truly disagree with your position. Seems to me that not reporting the X&Y actuals of a position if a hole is a shortcut that Companies try and take to save time. I believe this shortcut takes away from the intent of the FAIR as benchmarking the production 'Process' to continually yield acceptable material.
Most likely Quality Engineer or MFG Engineer or the Company paradigm doesn't care about process improvement yield measurements with an acceptable Ppk. RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Mechanical) 1 Sep 17 18:50. And how do you know it is a single XY pair? Maybe XY pair down / up and another XY pair at cetrain length/depth is also used/reported.How many extra lines are we going to put on the FAI? One for every XY hole 'location' at some number of Z depths? For every hole?A single basic dimension might serve to locate 1 hole.or 1000 holes.
What about dimension that are not shown on the drawing, like implied 90 degree angles, or implied zero distances? What about dimensions that we might not be able to measure, like small segments of a radius? There are countless things that might be defined with basic dimensions that demonstrate the silliness of the whole exercise.There is a big difference between a FAI and a metrology report used to investigate bad parts.
Anybody that blindly wants to include all basic dimensions on a FAI doesn't know what they are asking for. They're missing the point (and power) of geometric tolerances altogether.As an aside, who's waiting until a FAI to detect a failure mode that 'measuring' basic dimensions would show? In my world, we're not doing our job if something like that makes it to the FAI stage.
It should have been caught much sooner. RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Mechanical) 1 Sep 17 18:55. DCarnley -I noted that a number of companies specifically tell their suppliers to omit basic dimensions and so does an opinion from the AS9102 group.Any manufacturing engineer should be looking at the across-the-shop raw data for all the process to see what the shop capability is in various areas, as well as individual features on individual parts.
That level of detail isn't appropriate for an FAI report.As a customer, I would like to see long term statistics across the shop. It's been my experience that shops change equipment, operators, bits get dull, cutters get replaced. Unless there's a new FAI done every time that happens, FAIs really only mean that the shop could make one passing part and it's not a guarantee that the rest will conform.
I have never seen a shop include Cpk data with their bid package or in their website, though perhaps some have; they mostly list the machines they own.For holes, there are two main questions, 1) How far from the target location and 2) how far from the target diameter?, are your X-sigma values for the equipment and operators the part will be run on and what are the corresponding values for this particular part for the FAI?If I worried that much I would witness the inspection as well as the entire fabrication process and would have required a series of pre-qualification operations. It's all good stuff, but not for a snap-shot report. RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Aerospace). Nescius,Thank you for your insight. I agree that some things don't need to be on the FAI like implied 90 degree angles, or implied zero distances. Those thing are not on the Drawing and therefore are not required.
I also agree that What Company waits till the FAI to fix the process and repeatability and reproducibility. Unfortunately many don't. But if I have a requirement to measure of a hole position in Y as 12X 1.000 ±.005 you would record is once, range it from Min and Max, or treat each hole individually and record the result for each hole? You as how many lines is necessary.
I always fall back to the AS9102 to tell me.3.6 DESIGN CHARACTERISTICSThose dimensional, visual, functional, mechanical, and material features or properties, which describe and constitute thedesign of the article, as specified by drawing or DPD requirements. These characteristics can be measured, inspected,tested, or verified to determine conformance to the design requirements. Dimensional features include in-process locatingfeatures (e.g., target-machined or forged/cast dimensions on forgings and castings, weld/braze joint preparation necessaryfor acceptance of finished joint).
Material features or properties may include processing variables and sequences, whichare specified by the drawing or DPD (e.g., heat treat temperature, fluorescent penetrant class, ultrasonic scans, sequenceof welding and heat treat). DCarnley -From 3.10 - 'have produced an item conforming to engineering drawings' Just one item.
Not a way to the verify the process will remain in statistical control or act as a benchmark for getting better or worse results.The implied 90s are on the drawing and are described by 'and/or other applicable design documents.' Failing to measure them is typical and the reason that large default angle tolerances are still on drawings, even though compliant parts would often be useless for purpose were they built to the limits of those tolerances. ( Typical excuse is that extreme parts would be rejected for 'workmanship,' and so it doesn't matter what the tolerance value is, they won't be inspected anyway, closing the loop of ignorance.)I don't know about the gray area - the AS9102 committee issued an opinion saying the basic dimensions are considered reference information. Since the basic dimension has no tolerance, inspecting it is of no value.Is there anyone that publishes AS9102 guidance specifically requiring this reporting?
RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Mechanical) 2 Sep 17 01:56. I measure the worst case deviation of the cylinder on both sided and use the side for the worst position. Now we have CMMs. We can project the cylinder axis.
I program the CMM to measure each hole as a cylinder and bound the cylinder to the intersecting surface and the intersecting planar depth (Yes depth is a required measurement if it's on the drawing). CMM programs will calculate the worst case position at the intersection points.As the hole straightness and orientation error become worse, the conclusions you are drawing from this procedure are worth even less. Distilling the 'location' of a hole down to an XY coordinate is impossible.
Tolerancing the location of a hole with +/- dimensioning is and always has been complete madness. The only way any of this is valid is if you assume perfect form and orientation.which leads me to:Quote (DCarnley). Axym,If I inspect a part, I ought to record the measurements I took. Ideally, I should measure from the datums, but often, I have to work with the tooling I have.
Someone, probably not not necessarily me, has to process my measurements and compare them with the GD&T. If there is a basic dimension, there is a feature control frame showing what is allowed. As the inspector, I need to test this, and record the result.Recently, I inspected some part by sitting them on gauge blocks.
When parts were less than the maximum and more than the minimum, I quickly lost interest, and I don't really know what the dimensions were. I found some parts that did not conform, and then I made the effort to determine what the dimensions actually were.I am not accustomed to FAI's, although I anticipate seeing some soon. I would want to see that actual measurements included in the report.-JHG RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles.
I see this exact problem every day. I work as an Engineer of a supplier for major Aerospace companies. The problem seems to stem from the Quality people on both the customer side and supplier side not understanding GD&T enough.
From my research, Basic dimensions should be reported but they have no direct tolerance (obviously) so there is nothing to put a direct pass/fail on the individual Basic dimensions. In the past from the likes of GE, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce (all quality people) is that they cant pass a First Article because some dimensions (Basic) dont have tolerances attached to them so their system cant accept them. I've never dealt with any of the Quality systems of any of customer so I dont know if thats true/false. Some customers even go as far as forcing us to impose a made up tolerance on basic dimensions to pass their FAIs which is stupid. I dont know how to solve this issue as its not just one customer doing this.As for many of the same type of dimensions, such as a ton of hole positions.
Usually we are allowed to just give one report line and just put the range that all the inspected dimensions fall between. Ive never had any FAI fail over implied dimensions because every Quality person just looks at a drawing and basically makes a check list of the visual dimensions. If a dimension is not visible on the drawing then they dont do squat for it usually.But Basic dimensions should be reported on the FAI and with no direct tolerance just as its definition suggests. No Basic dimension should ever fail. If any quality person says for you to do any more than that then tell them to schedule a GD&T course or learn to use their FAI software better.
RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Mechanical) 21 Sep 17 13:28. I now have seen some First Article Inspection reports. These are spreadsheets showing the dimensions, the tolerances and the as-measured dimensions.
I assume these procedures were developed prior to rigorous understanding of GD&T. The logic is that I measure something. I record the result. I compare the result with the tolerances.If I inspect a complex outline controlled by a profile, I can easily record pass and fail. It probably is not possible to reduce the test to a couple of recordable numbers. The solution might be prepare an inspection drawing with dimensions with ± values, with codes referencing the inspection spreadsheet. Obviously, the dimensions would be based on an interpretation of the GD&T on the original drawing.-JHG RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Mechanical) 21 Sep 17 22:25.
If there are 13 holes to measure I give them 13 places to record it all. Yes a place for each of the 13 holes, 13 for the X's, 13 for the Y, 13 for the diameter and 13 for the position tolerance. I also will index the holes with a lower case letter on the drawing and place that index in the cell so the inspector knows which place to put the result. You might find this overkill.It may or may not be overkill, if you happen to want the data and believe that data to be valuable. As we discussed above, that data is fuzzy and relies on a number of assumptions.What I do believe, is that such data is not appropriate on a FAI, because it is not related to whether or not a given part meets its specifications. You are creating a connection with your assumptions, but there cannot be a mathematically certain link because geometric tolerancing transcends the concept of +-/XY dimensioning completely. There is no ability within the language of +-/XY notation to describe the things that a geometric tolerance is describing.I say that you're crippling the power of geometric tolerances because you're advocating a procedure that is easily shown to be nonsensical now, let alone if we look where part design, manufacturing, and measuring will be in the future.
Our ability to design, make, and measure fantastic, organic, free-form, optimized shapes is only growing. XY dimensioning has always been a terrible, mathematically flawed way to describe a 3D part and it's becoming less and less acceptable by the minute. RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Mechanical) 22 Sep 17 18:12.
Drawoh,As I said to DCarnley, that information may or may not have value. It depends on the individual part and tolerance. I even agree that such information is usually great to have, especially on typical machined parts.which overwhelmingly consist of orthagonal features generated on machines that are very square and repeatable. Even so, that doesn't mean it belongs on a FAI.If an entity wants to record said information on something they're calling an FAI, that's fine. What really grinds my gears is a customer demanding that I 'measure' and record all basic dimensions as part of some PPAP. 'Measure' is in quotes because, as I explain above, it is mathematically impossible to distill many things down to an XY pair.a hole 'location', for example. 'Location' is in quotes for a reason, too.because there's no such thing as a hole 'location' in the universe of XY coordinates.In your profile tolerance example, for XY numbers to have any value, the basic profile must be of constant cross section.
Even then, you're assuming the part is uniform in the Z direction, so that your XY at the Z that you chose ends up being representative. This isn't necessarily a terrible assumption, but.Of course, a profile tolerance can just as easily apply to a complex surface with no constant cross section.with the basic dimensions defined by a model or a mathematical equation. Where does it stop? Thousands of XYZ touch points listed on a FAI? Geometric tolerancing has the power to control an incredibly complex surface with only a single model and a single feature control frame. That is awesome.
Being forced to record raw metrology data points, potentially by the thousands, on a FAI.? That is the very definition of crippling the power of geometric tolerancing. RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Aerospace). Nescius,Maybe you are not understanding my intend of why I record Basic Dimensions on the FAI. True they are not shown as passing or failing for that line item but the basic dimension actuals support the actual positional. They are absolutely necessary to calculate the position. Your argument is that the basic dimensions don't need to be part of the FAI because as long as the actual hole position is within the true position tolerance then no one need know why.
This is where we differ. I'm surprised that you think that the basic dimension information is irrelevant on the FAI. I'm not sure you see the FAI as a benchmark for overall process to make the part successfully with data that shows why it was successful. I've reviewed many FAIs from many suppliers. I can tell the difference with suppliers that truly understand why we ask for a first article and other suppliers that just want to get it done from a minimalist approach. It is typically the minimalist suppliers that warrant higher scrutiny by our Supplier Quality Group. I have seen out right lies on a FAI where the inspector has no clue how to calculate position and just puts a passing number.
When that same part is measured by the customer they find that the positions don't correlate on a significant scale. From the minimalist FAI (without basic dimensions) the customer cannot determine how the inspector came up with the result. When the part is returned and the customer witnesses a second inspection at the supplier that same inspector shows the lack of knowledge to make the calculation or they find out that out the customer is right and the hole position is not what was reported.To respond to your gear grinding with customers asking to record the basic actuals for a PPAP, That is the only way to properly analyze the process. Like it or not the basic dimension coordinates are what tell you what the actual position is.
Because the theta angle is not recorded I can have a hole with an actual position of.005 and that hole position has an infinite number of location possibilities in a Cartesian circle that the.005 position diameter creates. The PPAP will determine if the process will have repeatability in both the X and Y directions.I have attached a file using a tool I created in excel to show actual delta position compared to the individual basic dimensions.
(deviation from Nominal). Take a look at it and you will see that when plotted interesting things can be ascertained when you can visually see the actual hole positions and the true position tolerances applied.RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Aerospace) 27 Sep 17 14:19. If I want to know about the inspection I want to know the XYZ and vector the CMM Probe was on at the time of each hit, and the diameter of the probe so I can check that the CMM did its math right. I also expect to see the source code and the compiled code to make sure that what the CMM software developers intended is what's happening, along with any errata sheets for the CPU. Also I need the full temperature distribution of the part and the CMM to make sure they are at exactly 68F.If that's not on the report how can a person be sure?It seems to me like you're avoiding qualifying vendor capabilities before letting contracts and using FAIs to inspect quality into the sub-contracting process.I suppose that's the reason for the disconnect - I would not depend on a supplier with a conflict of interest to supply both the parts and the FAI data without seeing their operation and understanding their process. So why do you accept their FAI at all?
Just do receiving inspection and send the failed parts back. RE: Basic Dimensions Documented in First Articles (Agricultural) 4 Oct 17 19:24. SDETERMDB or 3D PMI requires the Engineer to complete the Model and all tolerancing for all features. Unfortunately this does not always occur for the ModelWe do perform inspections on composite material using a GOM Blue Light ATOS 3D Scanner and gave the tolerance based on the Model with a Global Best Fit to a Profile of a surface of.060 (not related to any Datum's). This allowed specialized software to take the cloud of points and manipulate them all together and fit with the tolerance zone of +.030 /.030 to the model surfaces. This approach does limit any continued analysis as the information is not from any Datum structure.Don.