PPAP. Supplier Submission Preparation Guide. Production Product Approval Process. Version 1.0 April 2015

Transcription

1 PPAP Production Product Approval Process Version 1.0 April 2015 upplier ubmission Preparation Guide

2 upplier ubmission 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 ABRe) 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 ABRe requirements opposed to AIAG PPAP Book. Is for guidance only, all requirements of PPAP are specified within ABRe. This document may be updated periodically (see change history) and updates will be published on the upplier Global Portal. To gain access to associated training see This document has been structured to be printed in booklet format

3 Content This document... 2 Content... 3 Introduction to the ubmission Preparation Guide... 4 Purpose... 4 A. PPAP Requirements Product Definition / ngineering pecification Authorised ngineering Change Documents Customer ngineering Approvals Design Failure Mode and ffects Analysis (DFMA) Process Flow Diagram Process Failure Mode and ffects Analysis (PFMA) Control Plan Test / Inspection Criteria and Planning Qualified Laboratory Documentation Packaging and Labelling tandard and Documentation ample Production Product Measurement ystems Analysis Verification Dimensional Results Records of Material / Performance Test Results Initial Process tudies Process control surveillance results Initial Manufacturing Performance tudies Customer pecific Requirements First Article Inspection Report (FAIR) Process Control Document (PCD) Production ubmission Warrant (PW) List of Acronyms Change History Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 3 of 27 Document Revision 1.0

4 upplier ubmission Preparation Guide Introduction to the ubmission 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 upplier PPAP Handbook), this guide provides a series of structured questions to ascertain if the developed (or developing) PPAP File/Customer ubmission, has sufficient content and quality in relation to the PPAP lements (see ABRe). This is an aid to existing knowledge and not a definition of the specific requirements involved with these PPAP lements. uppliers are encouraged as part of their documented PPAP procedure to maintain additional questions to these that account for: rganisational learning, Product and manufacturing process knowledge (make, assembly, inspection and test) Resolution to corrective action resulting from a discrepancy on a previous submission / product

5 General Requirements Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 5 of 27 Document Revision 1.0

6 upplier ubmission Preparation Guide A. PPAP Requirements Has the organisation got a PPAP procedure and complied with it? Is there a PPAP File at the manufacturing location for the product? ote: 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 lement 1. Does the PPAP File clearly identify the applicable and not applicable PPAP lements? ote: 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. ee upplier 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? ote: Information on the Customer Witness can be found within the upplier PPAP Handbook.

7 Product Quality Planning Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 7 of 27 Document Revision 1.0

8 upplier ubmission Preparation Guide 1. Product Definition / ngineering pecification 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). ote: ach 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 ngineering specifications as defined by the product definition been referenced or included? ote: Confirmation of ngineering 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? (.g. Final Issue). Are the Drawing / CAD model / ngineering pecification to the correct issue level? When multiple products are involved, has a product configuration tree been included? ote: A product configuration tree is sometimes termed as a cascade diagram or product family tree or visual BoM Are all engineering specifications confirmed? ote: Confirmation of ngineering specifications can be in the form of a list, attachments or any formats that demonstrate confirmation. 2. Authorised ngineering Change Documents Is an ngineering Change Request applicable to this submission? I.e.: DAR, DCP, AM. Are product references aligned to the customer submission? I.e.: Part number, facility references etc. on related documents such as DAR, DCP, AM. 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?

9 3. Customer ngineering Approvals 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 uppliers only: The Design Verification Plan, has Design ngineering confirmed the plan has been satisfied? ote: 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. Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 9 of 27 Document Revision 1.0

10 upplier ubmission Preparation Guide 4. Design Failure Mode and ffects Analysis (DFMA) Design / Make uppliers only: Are product references aligned to the customer submission? I.e.: Part number, latest drawing issue, facility references etc. Have similar product DFMA's been considered? Have historic data (quality, reliability etc.) for similar product been considered? Was the DFMA developed by a cross functional team. I.e. Design ngineering, Manufacturing, ngineering and ngineering for services as a minimum? Is the DFMA maintained in line with the latest specifications and knowledge? Does the DFMA meet R-R requirements? I.e.: DFMA Rankings Guide used. Have all functional requirements been included and evaluated in the DFMA? Does the DFMA 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? ote: 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? ote: ystems and Lifecycle ngineering should have been consulted for assistance with this. Have everity, ccurrence, and Detection rankings been given to each failure mode? Have RP values been calculated correctly for each failure mode x 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 ngineer? I.e.: everity, ccurrence, Detection and RP should be reduced to As Low As Reasonably Practicable ote: DFMA 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.

11 5. Process Flow Diagram Is the Process Flow Diagram legible and in a format that can be understood by the Customer? Are product references aligned to the customer submission? I.e.: Part number, latest drawing issue, facility references etc. 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, perations, through to Despatch. ote: 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. ote: Good practice is to walk the process and follow the process flow to confirm accuracy. Completing the Process Control urveillance enables this to take place. Does the Process Flow illustrate where product verifications are performed?.g.: Test and/or inspection points Does the Process Flow illustrate where in the process performance metrics are recorded? I.e.: Metrics such as; tatistical 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, PC 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. ote: A product configuration tree is sometimes termed as a cascade diagram or product family tree or visual BoM T: 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. Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 11 of 27 Document Revision 1.0

12 upplier ubmission Preparation Guide 6. Process Failure Mode and ffects Analysis (PFMA) Are product references aligned to the customer submission? I.e.: Part number, latest drawing issue, facility references etc. Is the PFMA legible and in a format that can be understood by the Customer? Is the PFMA maintained in line with the latest specifications and knowledge? Has the PFMA covered all operations as per the Process Flow? I.e.: Follows the flow of the process steps and considers them in sufficient depth. Have PFMA 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 PFMA developed by a cross functional team, including Manufacturing ngineering, Production and Design ngineering (if a design/make supplier) as a minimum? I.e.: Key functions have contributed such as Manufacturing ngineering, Design ngineering, Quality, and Logistics along with process operators. Is there evidence the PFMA 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.: perator 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 everity, ccurrence, and Detection rankings been given to each failure mode? Have standardised scores been used for everity, ccurrence, and Detection rankings? I.e.: The company scoring criteria has been applied oppose to applying inconsistent/bespoke methods..g.: visual check score 7-8, good detection score 4-6, error-proofing score 1-3. lement 6 continues on the next page.

13 6. Process Failure Mode and ffects Analysis (PFMA) - Continued Have RP values been calculated correctly for each failure mode x x D? I.e.: Application of the formula ( x x D) and realistic values for each (, & D). Are corrective actions robust? I.e.: perator 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. rror-proofing is always the most robust corrective action. Are corrective actions addressed for high RP values? Are corrective actions addressed for high everity values? I.e.: re-design the feature ote: RP s are updated as a result of corrective actions. Have ccurrence, Detection and RP 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: DFMA or Drawing) through the PFMA and Control Plan? I.e.: A symbol / codes within the PFMA and Control Plan. Has feedback been provided to the customer when appropriate risk mitigation cannot be taken? ote: PFMA 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. Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 13 of 27 Document Revision 1.0

14 upplier ubmission Preparation Guide 7. Control Plan Is the Control Plan legible and in a format that can be understood by the Customer? Are product references aligned to the customer submission? I.e.: Part number, latest drawing issue, facility references etc. Is the Control Plan maintained in line with the latest specifications and knowledge? Is the Control Plan aligned to the Process Flow?.g. sequence numbers & descriptions are matched with Process Flow & PFMA 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 ngineering, Design ngineering, Quality, and Logistics along with process operators. Have all the controls that are defined as an output of PFMA been included into the Control Plan? I.e.: Review the PFMA 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? ote: refer to section on Variation Management within ABRe Are all the control methods clearly identified? I.e. Control Parameter (such as nominal and tolerance values) method, sample size, frequency and responsibilities? ote: Good practice is to walk the process to confirm the accuracy and compliance to the Control Plan. Completing the Process Control urveillance 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 PFMA? 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. ote: 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 ubmission Warrant see ABRe

15 8. Test / Inspection Criteria and Planning 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? Are product references aligned to the customer submission? I.e.: Part number, latest drawing issue, facility references etc. 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.: rganisations when sub-contract, operation numbers provide references. For material and/or performance tests: have the functional requirements of the product been identified from the ngineering pecifications? ote: 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 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? Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 15 of 27 Document Revision 1.0

16 upplier ubmission Preparation Guide 10. Packaging and Labelling tandard and Documentation Are the documented Technical Instructions legible and in a format that can be understood by the hop 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?

17 Production and Rate Proving Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 17 of 27 Document Revision 1.0

18 upplier ubmission Preparation Guide 11. ample Production Product When requested, does the sample(s) meet the requirements for this product?.g. the identification of the product, cross referencing to associated reports, and number of products specified. ote: 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 ystems Analysis Verification Does the Measurement ystem Analysis (MA) 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 MA studies been conducted for all instruments, which are listed in the Test Inspection Criteria and Control Plan? Was the MA studies representative of the production method?.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 oftware (PA) and or Acceptance Test Plan (ATP) has been used, is the approved PA / ATP been used for the job? I.e. Program uniquely identified, revision history maintained and PA / ATP is verified/approved. ote: PA refers to software use for numerically controlled test and / or inspection such as CMM. ote: 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.

19 13. Dimensional Results 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? ote 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 o" detailed on the Test / Inspection criteria used? I.e.: ach having Drawing Ref / sheet Has each measured characteristic s evaluation been completed? Have the responsible signatories confirmed the report? Are the results meeting quality targets? ote: Where quality targets have not been specified, 100% conformance should apply. ote: When an adaptation to the minimum of 5 products has been authorised by the R-R CARe (.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 lement 18: Customer-specific requirements Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 19 of 27 Document Revision 1.0

20 upplier ubmission Preparation Guide 14. Records of Material / Performance Test Results Has a Material Test Report/Performance Test Report (MTR/PTR) 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 MTR/PTR? ote: 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, Are product references aligned to the customer submission? I.e.: Part number, facility references etc. 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 o" detailed on the Test / Inspection criteria used? I.e.: ach having Drawing Ref / sheet Has each measured characteristics evaluation been completed? Have the responsible signatories confirmed the report? Are the results meeting quality targets? ote: Where quality targets have not been specified, 100% conformance should apply. 15. Initial Process tudies Have Rolls-Royce guidelines been used to carry out PC / capability studies? ote: Guidelines can be found in documents such as ABRe within the Variation Management section. Is the submission for this element legible and in a format that can be understood by the Customer? 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?

21 16. Process control surveillance results Has the surveillance been carried out during the production process run? Have all criteria defined within the Process Control urveillance 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? ote: The criteria are considered free of concern when all applicable questions recorded on the Process Control urveillance form receive a yes response. ubmission Level 4 (if requested by CARe) and ubmission Level 5 nly 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? Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 21 of 27 Document Revision 1.0

22 upplier ubmission Preparation Guide 17. Initial Manufacturing Performance tudies Has a Quality and Capacity Report (QCAR) been created? Have the requirements of the QCAR been satisfied? Are the results meeting quality targets? I.e.: The results from the products used during the production process run(s) equal or exceed the target. ote: 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. Have the responsible signatories confirmed the report? Are product references aligned to the customer submission? I.e.: Part number, facility references etc.

23 Production Product Approval Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 23 of 27 Document Revision 1.0

24 upplier ubmission Preparation Guide 18. Customer pecific Requirements Are records available that demonstrate sub-tier/sub-contractor can meet the intent of PPAP lement 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. ote: 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? ote: Records of compliance would confirm requirement cascaded by Rolls-Royce Production Product Approval Checklist (PPAC) and / or purchase order. Where Customer otification is applicable, have the specified or agreed requirements been complied to? Where applicable, has any customer owned (R-R) tooling been listed? Design / Make uppliers only: Where applicable for Design / Make suppliers only, has the Design Development Quality Plan been verified against R-R requirements? I.e. : Reference RR First Article Inspection Report (FAIR) Do all associated products have an approved First Article Inspection Report? ote: An approved First Article Inspection Report Approval form (also referred to as the front sheet) provides evidence of approval.

25 20. Process Control Document (PCD) 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. ote: PCD is used in conjunction with element Production ubmission Warrant (PW) Has a Production ubmission Warrant (PW) 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 P authoriser the person responsible for PPAP (PPAP Co-ordinator)? ote: 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. Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 25 of 27 Document Revision 1.0

26 upplier ubmission Preparation Guide List of Acronyms Acronym AM ATP C of C CAD CARe CCF Cpk D DAR DCP DFMA FAIR FPC Gauge R & R MA PCD PFMA PPAC P PW QCAR RP R-R ABRe PC TI Advanced ngineering Memorandum Acceptance Test Plan Certificate of Conformance Description Computer Aided Design Customer Authorised Representative referred to within ABRe as the Rolls-Royce Technical Authority Conformance Control Feature Capability Index Detection Drawing Approval Request Design Change Proposal Design Failure Mode and ffects Analysis First Article Inspection Report Fixed Process Control Gauge Repeatability and Reproducibility Measurement ystem Analysis ccurrence Process Control Document Process Failure Mode and ffects Analysis Production Product Approval Checklist Production upply rganisation (supplier) Production ubmission Warrant Quality and Capacity Analysis Report Risk Priority umber Rolls-Royce everity upplier Advanced Business Relationship tatistical Process Control Technical Instruction

27 PPAP Production Product Approval Process upplier ubmission Preparation Guide Change History Revision Date Description of Change Author 1.0 April 2015 Revised issue which is common with the ubmission Preparation Guide provided to R-R domestic plants. Clearly identify questions for Design / Make suppliers only. Updated FMA questions in line with the FMA Reference Guide. KARL VA 0.1 June 2013 First issue KARL VA Document update policy R-R PPAP Programme Manager 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 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. Rolls-Royce plc 2015 Page 27 of 27 Document Revision 1.0