PPAP - Rolls-Royce Holdings

PPAP Production Product Approval Process Version 1.0 April 2015

Supplier Submission Preparation Guide


This document

Provides guidance on the Production Product Approval Process (PPAP) standard used by Rolls-

Royce and should not be used as a stand-alone document (see SABRe)

The Rolls-Royce standard is modelled upon AIAG’s PPAP (Production Part Approval

Process) but differences exist given the distinctive requirements of Rolls-Royce and the

sectors it trades in. The term PPAP (Production Product Approval Process) is used

throughout to describe the Rolls-Royce version of this process and the corresponding

SABRe requirements opposed to AIAG PPAP Book.

Is for guidance only, all requirements of PPAP are specified within SABRe.

This document may be updated periodically (see change history) and updates will be published

on the Supplier Global Portal.

To gain access to associated training see http://suppliertraining.industryforum.co.uk

This document has been structured to be printed in booklet format

http://suppliertraining.industryforum.co.uk/

Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 3 of 27 Document Revision 1.0

Content

This document ......................................................................................................................... 2

Content .................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction to the Submission Preparation Guide ................................................................... 4

Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 4

A. PPAP Requirements ......................................................................................................... 6

1. Product Definition / Engineering Specification ..................................................................... 8

2. Authorised Engineering Change Documents ....................................................................... 8

3. Customer Engineering Approvals ........................................................................................ 9

4. Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (DFMEA) ......................................................... 10

5. Process Flow Diagram ....................................................................................................... 11

6. Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) ....................................................... 12

7. Control Plan ....................................................................................................................... 14

8. Test / Inspection Criteria and Planning .............................................................................. 15

9. Qualified Laboratory Documentation ................................................................................. 15

10. Packaging and Labelling Standard and Documentation .................................................. 16

11. Sample Production Product ............................................................................................. 18

12. Measurement Systems Analysis Verification ................................................................... 18

13. Dimensional Results ........................................................................................................ 19

14. Records of Material / Performance Test Results ............................................................. 20

15. Initial Process Studies ..................................................................................................... 20

16. Process control surveillance results ................................................................................. 21

17. Initial Manufacturing Performance Studies ...................................................................... 22

18. Customer Specific Requirements .................................................................................... 24

19. First Article Inspection Report (FAIR) .............................................................................. 24

20. Process Control Document (PCD) ................................................................................... 25

21. Production Submission Warrant (PSW) ........................................................................... 25

List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................... 26

Change History ...................................................................................................................... 27


Introduction to the Submission Preparation Guide

Purpose

For use by the PPAP Co-ordinator or anyone involved in the product launch process, prior to customer submission

(or for internal review: see monitor progress within the Supplier PPAP Handbook), this guide provides a series of

structured questions to ascertain if the developed (or developing) PPAP File/Customer Submission, has sufficient

content and quality in relation to the PPAP Elements (see SABRe).

This is an aid to existing knowledge and not a definition of the specific requirements involved with these PPAP

Elements.

Suppliers are encouraged as part of their documented PPAP procedure to maintain additional questions to these

that account for:

Organisational learning,

Product and manufacturing process knowledge (make, assembly, inspection and test)

Resolution to corrective action resulting from a discrepancy on a previous submission / product


General Requirements


A. PPAP Requirements

YES

NO

Has the organisation got a PPAP procedure and complied with it?

Is there a PPAP File at the manufacturing location for the product?

Note: The actual file can contain the evidence or provide links to the evidence provided this is understandable upon customer review or submission. A product group or family PPAP file may be implemented when appropriate. However, customer submission is required to be part number based.

Does the PPAP File clearly identify the associated product or products (casting, forging, component, unit and/or assembly)? I.e.: Link to product configuration tree, see PPAP Element 1.

Does the PPAP File clearly identify the applicable and not applicable PPAP Elements?

Note: When multiple products are involved use of a PPAP Applicability Matrix provides a clear illustration of the applicability for each involved product. I.e.: Casting or forging or component or unit or sub-assembly or assembly. See Supplier PPAP Hand Book.

Has the Production process run taken place and confirmed by the PPAP Coordinator as satisfactory for the requirements?

Has sufficient product been used from the Production process run?

When required, has the customer witness taken place and confirmed to be fully satisfied by the R-R CARe?

When a customer witness has taken place, have all identified issues or concerns been addressed through effective corrective action?

Note: Information on the Customer Witness can be found within the Supplier PPAP Handbook.


Product Quality Planning


1. Product Definition / Engineering Specification

YES

NO

Has the Product Definition clearly been defined?

I.e.: A document which clearly identifies each feature on the drawing, including drawing notes, been

prepared or included (for example but not limited to:- balloon drawing).

Note: Each feature of the drawing should be referenced and identified on the Test / Inspection Criteria and Dimensional / Material / Performance test reports

Where required has a CAD model file been referenced or included?

Have Engineering specifications as defined by the product definition been referenced or

included?

Note: Confirmation of Engineering specifications can be in the form of a list, attachments or any formats that demonstrate confirmation. Use of the Test Inspection Criteria (TIC) form is a source of reference for all specifications

Is the drawing used the production standard? (E.g. Final Issue).

Are the Drawing / CAD model / Engineering Specification to the correct issue level?

When multiple products are involved, has a product configuration tree been included?

Note: A product configuration tree is sometimes termed as a cascade diagram or product family tree or visual BoM

Are all engineering specifications confirmed?

Note: Confirmation of Engineering specifications can be in the form of a list, attachments or any formats that demonstrate confirmation.

2. Authorised Engineering Change Documents

YES

NO

Is an Engineering Change Request applicable to this submission? I.e.: DAR, DCP, AEM.

Are product references aligned to the customer submission? I.e.: Part number, facility references etc. on related documents such as DAR, DCP, AEM.

Has an approved engineering change request been included that is aligned to the submission?

Have all changes been approved and implemented prior to the submission?


3. Customer Engineering Approvals

YES

NO

If a Concession is applicable has the associated documentation been included that demonstrates approval?

If Fixed Process Control (FPC) is applicable, has associated documentation been included that demonstrates approval?

Design / Make Suppliers only:

The Design Verification Plan, has Design Engineering confirmed the plan has been satisfied?

Note: A Design Verification Plan is a document(s) containing the test(s) and Inspection(s) aimed at ensuring that all design outputs meet design conditions specified for the product and results. In essence, this ensures that a product will perform as it is designed to do and is performed as part of the design review process.


4. Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (DFMEA)

YES

NO


Are product references aligned to the customer submission? I.e.: Part number, latest drawing issue, facility references etc.

Have similar product DFMEA's been considered?

Have historic data (quality, reliability etc.) for similar product been considered?

Was the DFMEA developed by a cross functional team. I.e. Design Engineering, Manufacturing, Engineering and Engineering for services as a minimum?

Is the DFMEA maintained in line with the latest specifications and knowledge?

Does the DFMEA meet R-R requirements? I.e.: DFMEA Rankings Guide used.

Have all functional requirements been included and evaluated in the DFMEA?

Does the DFMEA identify CCF’s or key characteristics (if applicable)?

Are the potential failure modes clearly defined? I.e.: for one relating to air pressure, the failure modes would be: too low, too high, no pressure and intermittent pressure.

Have the causes for failure modes been described in terms of something that can be fixed or controlled?

Note: Where appropriate these should be identified to a root cause level

Have the effects of failure modes been considered on higher level systems and the customer?

Note: Systems and Lifecycle Engineering should have been consulted for assistance with this.

Have Severity, Occurrence, and Detection rankings been given to each failure mode?

Have RPN values been calculated correctly for each failure mode S x O x D?

Have preventions been specified for each failure mode?

Have all actions been closed out, or where appropriate has the level of risk associated with the failure mode been accepted by the Chief Design Engineer? I.e.: Severity, Occurrence, Detection and RPN should be reduced to As Low As Reasonably Practicable

Note: DFMEA for groups or families of parts, components or assemblies are acceptable evidence if the new materials, part, component or assembly can be confirmed as having been reviewed for commonality and accuracy of risk priority numbers by the supplier.


5. Process Flow Diagram

YES

NO

Is the Process Flow Diagram legible and in a format that can be understood by the Customer?


Was the manufacturing process flow chart developed by a cross functional team? I.e.: Key functions have contributed such as Quality, Manufacturing, Logistics along with process operators

Does the Process Flow cover the process from beginning of the process up to delivery of the product? I.e.: Goods Receiving, Operations, through to Despatch.

Note: The Process Flow can consist of one or a number of diagrams, in all cases the highest level diagram illustrates the entire process from beginning to end.

Where a qualified operator is required does the process flow identify this?

Where sub-contractors are used does the Process Flow cover these external activities?

Does the Process Flow reflect the actual Production Process? I.e.: The documented flow reflects the process which is operated and each step clearly defines the actual task.

Note: Good practice is to walk the process and follow the process flow to confirm accuracy. Completing the Process Control Surveillance enables this to take place.

Does the Process Flow illustrate where product verifications are performed? E.g.: Test and/or inspection points

Does the Process Flow illustrate where in the process performance metrics are recorded? I.e.: Metrics such as; Statistical process control, Cycle-time and lead-time adherence, Process yield rates (% scrap, % rework) and/or Product % Right First Time

Does the Process Flow illustrate where the technical information is collated for configuration management? I.e. Creation of the Certificate of Conformance (C of C) - materials & sub-contractors, SPC charts, Inspection reports, completed route/method etc.

Does the Process Flow correspond with the product configuration tree? I.e.: When multiple products are used the configuration of these in relation to the process flow and the product configuration tree.

Note: A product configuration tree is sometimes termed as a cascade diagram or product family tree or visual BoM

NOTE: Process flow diagram for groups or families of material, parts, components, assemblies or processes are acceptable evidence if the new material, part, component, assembly or process can be confirmed as having been reviewed for commonality by the supplier.


6. Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA)

YES

NO


Is the PFMEA legible and in a format that can be understood by the Customer?

Is the PFMEA maintained in line with the latest specifications and knowledge?

Has the PFMEA covered all operations as per the Process Flow? I.e.: Follows the flow of the process steps and considers them in sufficient depth.

Have PFMEA for similar products and process knowledge been considered?

Have historic data (quality, process performance etc.) been considered? I.e.: The involvement of history data and cross-functional knowledge, review quality data / charts. Cross-check the highest severity scores with known escapes to customer.

Was the PFMEA developed by a cross functional team, including Manufacturing Engineering, Production and Design Engineering (if a design/make supplier) as a minimum? I.e.: Key functions have contributed such as Manufacturing Engineering, Design Engineering, Quality, and Logistics along with process operators.

Is there evidence the PFMEA is a living document? I.e.: If the document has been in place for a period of time has the version control changed from (v1 to v2)? Does it include info from recent quality issues (customer complaints numbers etc.)?

Are the potential failure modes clearly defined? I.e.: for one relating to air pressure, the failure modes would be: too low, too high, no pressure and intermittent pressure.

Have the effects of failure modes been considered on subsequent operations? I.e.: effects on product, equipment, tooling, people etc. beyond just quality concerns

Has an appropriate root cause been identified? I.e.: Operator error or machine error is not the root cause. For low air pressure the cause could be a leak / hole in tubing.

Where Detection is the major factor, have actions been taken to improve control prior to the next operation?

Have Severity, Occurrence, and Detection rankings been given to each failure mode?

Have standardised scores been used for Severity, Occurrence, and Detection rankings? I.e.: The company scoring criteria has been applied oppose to applying inconsistent/bespoke methods. E.g.: visual check score 7-8, good detection score 4-6, error-proofing score 1-3.

Element 6 continues on the next page.


6. Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA)

- Continued

YES

NO

Have RPN values been calculated correctly for each failure mode S x O x D? I.e.: Application of the formula (S x O x D) and realistic values for each (S, O & D).

Are corrective actions robust? I.e.: Operator training & update instructions maybe part of a solution, but can preventative measures be also implemented that at least detect the root cause before the defect is produced. Error-proofing is always the most robust corrective action.

Are corrective actions addressed for high RPN values?

Are corrective actions addressed for high Severity values? I.e.: re-design the feature

Note: RPN’s are updated as a result of corrective actions.

Have Occurrence, Detection and RPN been reduced As Low As Reasonably Practicable?

Where CCF’s or key characteristics are identified, can a traceable link be demonstrated from the source (for example: DFMEA or Drawing) through the PFMEA and Control Plan? I.e.: A symbol / codes within the PFMEA and Control Plan.

Has feedback been provided to the customer when appropriate risk mitigation cannot be taken?

Note: PFMEA for groups or families of parts, components, assemblies or processes are acceptable evidence if the new materials, part, component, assembly or process can be confirmed as having been reviewed for commonality and accuracy of risk priority numbers by the supplier.


7. Control Plan

YES

NO

Is the Control Plan legible and in a format that can be understood by the Customer?


Is the Control Plan maintained in line with the latest specifications and knowledge?

Is the Control Plan aligned to the Process Flow? E.g. sequence numbers & descriptions are matched with Process Flow & PFMEA and cover the start to finish of the production process.

Was the Control Plan developed by a cross functional team? I.e.: Key functions have contributed such as Manufacturing Engineering, Design Engineering, Quality, and Logistics along with process operators.

Have all the controls that are defined as an output of PFMEA been included into the Control Plan? I.e.: Review the PFMEA and Control Plan together and compare the links between each.

Where CCF's or other such characteristics have been specified are they identified in the Control Plan?

Where CCF's or other such characteristics have been specified have statistical control methods been applied?

Note: refer to section on Variation Management within SABRe

Are all the control methods clearly identified? I.e. Control Parameter (such as nominal and tolerance values) method, sample size, frequency and responsibilities?

Note: Good practice is to walk the process to confirm the accuracy and compliance to the Control Plan. Completing the Process Control Surveillance enables this to take place.

Have appropriate escalation processes been defined (included or referenced) within the reaction plan?

Has the Control Plan been updated when any change occurs affecting product, production process, measurement, logistics, supply sources or PFMEA? I.e.: If the control plan has been in place for a period of time has the version control changed (v1 to v2)

Has the effectiveness of these controls been reviewed? I.e.: Confirmation that the control is adequate for its purpose.

Note: A single control plan may apply to a group or family of products that are produced by the same process at the same source. Control plan approval may be required by certain requirements in advance of Production Submission Warrant – see SABRe


8. Test / Inspection Criteria and Planning

YES

NO

Do the test inspection criteria verify all product characteristics? I.e. Inclusive of all characteristics specified on drawing, engineering specification associated with this product.

Is the Test Inspection Criteria legible and in a format that can be understood by the Customer?


For characteristics with associated engineering specifications, have the correct engineering specifications been identified?

Do the acceptance/rejection criteria identify the product definition and engineering specification requirements?

Has the type of measurement equipment used been specified?

Have the responsible signatories confirmed the report?

Have all organisations and process references been identified? I.e.: Organisations when sub-contract, operation numbers provide references.

For material and/or performance tests: have the functional requirements of the product been identified from the Engineering Specifications?

Note: When all the requirements of the Test Inspection Criteria (TIC) are accounted in the associated characteristic matrix, this can be used as an alternative to the TIC. Characteristic matrix is defined as a document that illustrates the relationship between the product characteristic and the process that produces/verifies quality.

9. Qualified Laboratory Documentation

YES

NO

In association with the Test Inspection Criteria, do the submitted documents prove qualification of the laboratory against R-R requirements?

Has the validity period of the laboratories been verified (approvals up to date)?

Has the accreditation and the scope of the document been verified (are the necessary approvals in place for the required testing)?

Were the material and or performance tests specified in element 8 performed by an accredited laboratory?


10. Packaging and Labelling Standard and Documentation

YES

NO

Are the documented Technical Instructions legible and in a format that can be understood by the Shop floor Associates and the Customer?

Does the defined packaging standard provide adequate protection against damage, deterioration and tampering during shipment?

Does the defined labelling standard provide adequate identification and traceability of the product?

Do the Technical Instructions correlate to the packaging and labelling requirements of the process?

Where engineering specifications are applicable, are they accounted for within the Technical Instruction?

Are the Technical Instructions provided understandable to users?


Production and Rate Proving


11. Sample Production Product

YES

NO

When requested, does the sample(s) meet the requirements for this product? E.g. the identification of the product, cross referencing to associated reports, and number of products specified.

Note: For example these products are components or units or sub-assemblies related to the product documented within the submission and can be used to support cosmetic or functional approval, or assist upstream / downstream manufacturing evaluation of fit or produce-ability.

These may also be forgings or castings.

12. Measurement Systems Analysis Verification

YES

NO

Does the Measurement System Analysis (MSA) report/data legible and in a format that can be understood by the Customer?

Has the report been verified to include Instrument details with, number of appraisers, number of trials, and number of parts?

Have MSA studies been conducted for all instruments, which are listed in the Test Inspection Criteria and Control Plan?

Was the MSA studies representative of the production method? E.g.: Production personnel and gauging / equipment used. Considered environmental effects such as temperature change.

Are all results less than or equal to defined target values?

When Product Acceptance Software (PAS) and or Acceptance Test Plan (ATP) has been used, is the approved PAS / ATP been used for the job? I.e. Program uniquely identified, revision history maintained and PAS / ATP is verified/approved.

Note: PAS refers to software use for numerically controlled test and / or inspection such as CMM.

Note: Measurement system analysis techniques and statistical studies refer to Gauge Repeatability & Reproducibility and / or Attribute Agreement Analysis. In addition to calibration, the monitoring / measuring equipment should be confirmed as been regularly checked against a calibrated reference of known size and form.


13. Dimensional Results

YES

NO

Has a Dimensional Results Report (DRR) been submitted?

Is the submission for this element legible and in a format that can be understood by the Customer?

Have R-R guidelines been used to prepare the dimensional report?

Note Where a substitute report to the DRR is used, this is only acceptable when it contains the equivalent information detailed within the DRR,

Are product references aligned to the customer submission?

I.e.: Part number, facility references etc.

For all dimensional verifications detailed on the TIC have results been provided?

Units of measure are reported in the same units as on the Rolls-Royce drawing?

Where a balloon drawing has not been used are referenced "CHAR No" detailed on the Test /

Inspection criteria used?

I.e.: Each having Drawing Ref / sheet

Has each measured characteristic’s evaluation been completed?


Are the results meeting quality targets?

Note: Where quality targets have not been specified, 100% conformance should apply.

Note: When an adaptation to the minimum of 5 products has been authorised by the R-R CARe (E.g.: When significant production volumes exist >5 or circumstances where low production volumes exist <5) the submission must include the record of this authorisation as part of PPAP Element 18: Customer-specific requirements


14. Records of Material / Performance Test Results

YES

NO

Has a Material Test Report/Performance Test Report (MTR/PTR) been submitted?


Have R-R guidelines been used to prepare the MTR/PTR?

Note: Where a substitute report to the MTR/PTR is used, this is only acceptable when it contains the equivalent information detailed within the MTR/PTR,



For all material and performance verifications (chemical, mechanical, functional and performance test) detailed on the TIC, have results been provided?

Units of measure reported in the same units as on the Rolls-Royce drawing?

Where a balloon drawing has not been used are referenced "CHAR No" detailed on the Test /

Inspection criteria used?

I.e.: Each having Drawing Ref / sheet

Has each measured characteristics evaluation been completed?



Note: Where quality targets have not been specified, 100% conformance should apply.

15. Initial Process Studies

YES

NO

Have Rolls-Royce guidelines been used to carry out SPC / capability studies? Note: Guidelines can be found in documents such as SABRe within the Variation Management section.


Have studies been conducted for all CCF or other such characteristics?

For all CCF's or other such characteristics are the process capability calculations showing stability?

For all CCF's or other such characteristics that are stable, do the process capability calculations satisfy index targets?


16. Process control surveillance results

YES

NO

Has the surveillance been carried out during the production process run?

Have all criteria defined within the Process Control Surveillance form been evaluated?

Has the surveillance been representative of the manufacturing production environment?

Are all results for the manufacturing criteria free of concern?

Are all results for the product quality criteria free of concern?

Are all results for the non-conformance criteria free of concern?

Are all results for the sub-contractor/sub-tier criteria free of concern?

Are all results for the packaging & handling criteria free of concern?

Note: The criteria are considered free of concern when all applicable questions recorded on the Process Control Surveillance form receive a yes response.

Submission Level 4 (if requested by CARe) and Submission Level 5 Only

Has an independent surveillance been carried out during the production process run by the CARe?

Are all results for the manufacturing criteria free of concern?

Are all results for the product quality criteria free of concern?

Are all results for the non-conformance criteria free of concern?

Are all results for the sub-contractor/sub-tier criteria free of concern?

Are all results for the packaging & handling criteria free of concern?


17. Initial Manufacturing Performance Studies

YES

NO

Has a Quality and Capacity Report (QCAR) been created?

Have the requirements of the QCAR been satisfied?


I.e.: The results from the products used during the production process run(s) equal or exceed the

target.

Note: Where quality targets have not been specified, 100% RFT should apply.

Have the capacity results demonstrated potential to meet targets (customer demand rate)?

I.e.: The results from the products used during the production process run(s) demonstrate that

customer demand rate can be achieved or exceeded.





Production Product Approval


18. Customer Specific Requirements

YES

NO

Are records available that demonstrate sub-tier/sub-contractor can meet the intent of PPAP Element 17? I.e.: For each product (or process), the potential to satisfy customer demand rate and support production quantities at a consistent quality level has been evaluated and the result is recorded. This result demonstrates the potential to satisfy customer demand rate.

Note: Customer demand rate is the number of products produced by the supplier over a specified period of time to satisfy the delivery schedule cascaded by the customer.

Where additional customer specific requirements have been requested, are there records of compliance for these?

Note: Records of compliance would confirm requirement cascaded by Rolls-Royce Production Product Approval Checklist (PPAC) and / or purchase order.

Where Customer Notification is applicable, have the specified or agreed requirements been complied to?

Where applicable, has any customer owned (R-R) tooling been listed?


Where applicable for Design / Make suppliers only, has the Design Development Quality Plan been verified against R-R requirements? I.e. : Reference RRES90009

19. First Article Inspection Report (FAIR)

YES

NO

Do all associated products have an approved First Article Inspection Report?

Note: An approved First Article Inspection Report Approval form (also referred to as the front sheet) provides evidence of approval.


20. Process Control Document (PCD)

YES

NO

Has an approved Process Control Document (PCD) been submitted and approved?

Are product references aligned to the customer submission? I.e.: Part number, facility references etc.

Note: PCD is used in conjunction with element 15.

21. Production Submission Warrant (PSW)

YES

NO

Has a Production Submission Warrant (PSW) been submitted?

Are product references aligned to the customer submission? I.e. part number, facility references etc.

Has the reason for submission been stated)?

Is the customer required submission level been identified?

Has the submission content been identified for each element?

Are the results of all declarations positive?

Is the PSO authoriser the person responsible for PPAP (PPAP Co-ordinator)?

Note: If the supplier believes that the submission has a compliance gap, these are identified and an action plan to address these is submitted along with a commitment date for re-submission. If any of the elements are not applicable, this is stated within the PPAP File.


List of Acronyms

Acronym Description AEM Advanced Engineering Memorandum

ATP Acceptance Test Plan

C of C Certificate of Conformance

CAD Computer Aided Design

CARe Customer Authorised Representative referred to within SABRe as the Rolls-Royce Technical

Authority

CCF Conformance Control Feature

Cpk Capability Index

D Detection

DAR Drawing Approval Request

DCP Design Change Proposal

DFMEA Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

FAIR First Article Inspection Report

FPC Fixed Process Control

Gauge R & R Gauge Repeatability and Reproducibility

MSA Measurement System Analysis

O Occurrence

PCD Process Control Document

PFMEA Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

PPAC Production Product Approval Checklist

PSO Production Supply Organisation (supplier)

PSW Production Submission Warrant

QCAR Quality and Capacity Analysis Report

RPN Risk Priority Number

R-R Rolls-Royce

S Severity

SABRe Supplier Advanced Business Relationship

SPC Statistical Process Control

TI Technical Instruction



© Rolls-Royce plc 2015 The information in this document is the property of Rolls-Royce plc and may not be copied, communicated to a third party or used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied, without the express written consent of Rolls-Royce plc. While the information is given in good faith based upon the latest information available to Rolls-Royce plc, no warranty or representation is given concerning such information, which must not be taken as establishing any contractual or other commitment binding upon Rolls-Royce plc or any of its subsidiary or associated companies.

Change History

Revision Date Description of Change

Author

1.0 April 2015 Revised issue which is common with the ‘Submission Preparation Guide’ provided to R-R domestic plants.

Clearly identify questions for Design / Make suppliers only.

Updated FMEA questions in line with the FMEA Reference Guide.

KARL EVANS

0.1 June 2013 First issue KARL EVANS

R-R PPAP Programme

Manager

Document update policy

This document may be updated periodically. Major amendments will be shown as an update from one revision number to a higher revision number (e.g. revision 1 to revision 2) and therefore the content of the higher revision will be regarded as the latest requirements. A minor amendment will be shown as a number change after a decimal point (e.g. revision 1.1 to revision 1.2) and therefore any of these revisions may be regarded as the latest requirements until a major amendment is introduced

PPAP Production Product Approval Process