How Acme Aerostructures proves that every CWP-700 composite wing panel delivered to Meridian Aircraft Co. conforms to specification — across Phase 1 qualification and First Article, and through Phase 2 rate production. This is the strategy that connects the AS9100 QMS (what the quality system requires), the First Article Inspection (proof the process can make a conforming part), and the Material Review Board (what happens when one doesn't). Those three documents own their subjects; this one owns how verification is designed, sequenced, and resourced across the whole program.
14
Quality & inspection staff
3
Shifts, Phase 2
4
NDT Level II technicians
100% → n
Sampling transition
Mo 14/18
Program status point
Why a composite structure is verified differently. A machined metal part can largely be inspected after the fact — the geometry is visible and measurable. A composite panel cannot. Its most critical properties, cure quality, void content, porosity, ply orientation, bond integrity, are created inside an autoclave and cannot be restored by rework once wrong. Verification therefore front-loads onto process control and non-destructive inspection, because by the time a panel exists, the strength you needed either got built into it or it did not.
01 Purpose, Scope & Document Boundaries
This strategy governs all verification performed on the CWP-700 program: incoming material, in-process, special process, non-destructive, destructive, dimensional, and final acceptance. It applies across both contract phases and all three production shifts.
Boundaries with adjacent quality documents
| Document | Owns | This strategy adds |
|---|---|---|
| AS9100 QMS | Clause structure, QMS requirements, certification and audit cadence, product safety and counterfeit prevention | How verification activity satisfies Clause 8 in practice on this program |
| First Article Inspection | The AS9102 forms, the S/N 0001 checklist, the FAI gate itself | How the program gets to a passing FAI, and what verification continues after it |
| Material Review Board | MRB composition, disposition types, escalation tiers, the MRB log | How nonconformances are detected and routed into MRB, and what happens after disposition |
02 Verification Architecture
Verification follows the aerospace building-block principle: confidence is established at the lowest level first, so that a failure at panel level is a surprise rather than a routine outcome.
LEVEL 1
Material
Prepreg lot certification, PPAP, incoming inspection, out-time and freezer control
LEVEL 2
Process
Autoclave cure cycle validation, layup control, special process qualification
LEVEL 3
Coupon & witness
Mechanical test coupons and travelling witness panels cured with production hardware
LEVEL 4
Part
Dimensional, NDT, visual and workmanship verification of each panel
LEVEL 5
Acceptance
FAI, customer source inspection, Certificate of Conformance, delivery
How the phases differ
| Aspect | Phase 1 — Qualification & First Article (6 months) | Phase 2 — Production Ramp & Steady-State (12 months) |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose of verification | Prove the process is capable of producing a conforming panel | Prove each panel conforms, and that the process stays capable at rate |
| Inspection intensity | 100% of characteristics, every panel | 100% of Key Characteristics; sampling on others once capability is demonstrated (Section 10) |
| Destructive testing | Extensive — coupons, witness panels, cure validation | Reduced and periodic — witness panels per cure cycle, lot-based coupons |
| Emphasis | Establishing and validating the control plan | Statistical monitoring of the validated control plan |
03 Standards & Specification Framework
| Standard | Applies to | Use on CWP-700 |
|---|---|---|
| AS9100D | Quality management system | Governing QMS; Clause 8 operational controls |
| AS9102 | First Article Inspection | FAI forms 1–3 and the FAI gate into production |
| AS9145 / PPAP | Advanced product quality planning & part approval | Supplier PPAP submissions for raw material; control plan discipline |
| NADCAP special process accreditation | Composites, NDT, bonding | Accreditation maintained for in-house special processes; verified for external processors |
| NAS 410 / equivalent | NDT personnel qualification | Level II certification for all NDT technicians performing acceptance inspection |
| Meridian engineering source data | Product definition | Drawings, specifications, tolerances and Key Characteristics — baselined per assumption A-01 |
| ASTM / customer test methods | Mechanical and physical testing | Coupon test methods, void content, fiber volume fraction, glass transition temperature |
04 Verification Organization
Fourteen quality and inspection staff, all onshore, phased in as the program scales from single-shift qualification to three-shift rate production.
| Name | Role | Joins | Verification responsibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| R. Kessler | Quality Engineering Lead — AS9100 QMS Owner | Phase 1 | Owns this strategy, the control plan, FAI signature, QMS conformance |
| L. Vance | Materials / NDT Engineer | Phase 1 | NDT method development, cure validation, coupon and witness-panel testing |
| S. Pham | Supplier Quality Engineer (PPAP) | Phase 1 | Supplier PPAP, incoming material verification, supplier audits |
| B. Solis | Quality Inspector | Phase 1 | Dimensional and visual inspection, in-process verification |
| J. Ferraro | MRB Chair / Sr. Quality Engineer | Phase 2 | Chairs MRB; nonconformance disposition |
| N. Vasquez | Quality Inspector | Phase 2 | Dimensional and visual inspection |
| R. Achebe | NDT Technician, Level II — Shift 1 | Phase 2 | Ultrasonic inspection, acceptance disposition |
| K. Sorensen | NDT Technician, Level II — Shift 2 | Phase 2 | Ultrasonic inspection, acceptance disposition |
| B. Winfield | NDT Technician, Level II — Shift 3 | PA-002 (Jul 2027) | Ultrasonic inspection, third-shift coverage |
| P. Larsen | Quality Inspector — Shift 3 | PA-002 (Jul 2027) | Third-shift dimensional and visual inspection |
| N. Redmond | MRB Quality Engineer | PA-002 (Jul 2027) | MRB throughput support at increased rate |
| A. Restrepo | Supplier Quality Engineer (PPAP) | PA-002 (Jul 2027) | Second supplier-quality resource for dual-source material |
| W. Fairweather | Incoming Material Inspector | PA-002 (Jul 2027) | Incoming prepreg and detail-part verification |
| I. Sondheim | Incoming Material Inspector | PA-002 (Jul 2027) | Incoming prepreg and detail-part verification |
Single-point-of-failure, named. Risk R-06 records that AS9100 QMS ownership sits with one individual (R. Kessler), and that an unplanned absence would stall both MRB dispositions and FAI signature — two gates that stop delivery outright. Mitigation is a designated deputy with signature authority for MRB disposition, plus J. Ferraro and N. Redmond carrying MRB capability independently from Phase 2 onward. A verification organization with one irreplaceable signature is a delivery risk, not just an HR one.
05 Key Characteristics & Control Plan Flow-Down
Not every dimension on a wing panel matters equally. Key Characteristics — those whose variation materially affects fit, structural performance, or safety — are identified from Meridian's engineering source data and flowed down into the control plan, the router, and the inspection method sheet.
| Characteristic class | Examples on CWP-700 | Verification | Phase 2 intensity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Key Characteristic | Interface hole positions, panel contour/profile, laminate thickness at load-bearing locations, bond-line integrity | Dimensional metrology, ultrasonic NDT, SPC-monitored | 100% — never sampled |
| Critical process parameter | Cure cycle temperature ramp, dwell, pressure, vacuum integrity, prepreg out-time | Automated cure record, process monitoring, alarm on excursion | 100% of cycles, recorded |
| Standard characteristic | Edge trim, non-structural dimensions, cosmetic finish | Dimensional and visual inspection | Sampling once capability demonstrated |
Lesson already learned on this program. Issue I-01 was a First Article dimensional nonconformance — edge trim out of tolerance on 2 of 8 panel positions on the initial tooling run. Edge trim is a standard characteristic, not a Key Characteristic, and it still stopped the FAI. The lesson embedded here: classification determines sampling intensity, not whether a characteristic is verified at all. Every characteristic on the drawing is verified; the classification only decides how often.
06 Incoming Material Verification
Composite material is perishable, single-sourced by default, and the origin of an entire panel's properties. It receives verification proportionate to that leverage.
| Control | Verification | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| Supplier PPAP | Full PPAP submission reviewed and approved before a lot is released to production | S. Pham / A. Restrepo |
| Certificate of Analysis | Resin content, areal weight, tack, volatile content verified against specification | Incoming inspection |
| Lot traceability | Every panel traceable to prepreg lot, roll, and cure cycle | Quality / router |
| Freezer & out-time control | Cumulative out-time tracked per roll; material rejected at limit regardless of appearance | Materials |
| Receiving inspection | Physical condition, packaging integrity, documentation completeness | W. Fairweather / I. Sondheim |
Two decisions shaped this section. D-03 approved dual-source qualification of the primary prepreg rather than continuing single-source, in response to risk R-01 — which means incoming verification must now demonstrate equivalence between two qualified material sources, not merely conformance of one. D-04 established a standing quarterly PPAP review cadence with key raw-material suppliers rather than annual, to catch quality drift between formal submissions. Issue I-05 — a lot whose PPAP arrived missing a dimensional report, delaying qualification by three days — is exactly the drift that cadence exists to catch earlier.
07 Special Process Control
Composite layup, autoclave cure, bonding and NDT are special processes: their results cannot be fully verified by subsequent inspection of the product. Control is therefore exercised on the process and the operator, not only on the output.
| Special process | Control method | Verification evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Ply layup | Qualified operators; laser projection or template control of ply placement and orientation | Operator certification records; in-process layup verification before bagging |
| Vacuum bagging | Leak-down test to specification before cure | Recorded vacuum integrity check — a failed bag is caught here, not after cure |
| Autoclave cure | Validated cure cycle; thermocouple monitoring; automated cycle record | Cure chart reviewed and accepted per cycle; excursions route to MRB |
| Bonding | Surface preparation control, environmental limits, qualified operators | Process records; witness coupons |
| NDT | Written technique, calibrated reference standards, NAS 410 Level II personnel | Technique sheets, calibration records, inspector certification |
Operator qualification is verification too. Assumption A-05 — that the three manufacturing technician rotations qualified in Phase 1 remain available at planned allocation through Phase 2 — is a quality assumption as much as a staffing one, because an unqualified operator on a special process invalidates the control regardless of what the inspection finds afterward.
08 Non-Destructive Testing Strategy
Ultrasonic inspection is the primary means of detecting the defects that matter most in a cured composite panel — porosity, voids, delamination, and disbonds — none of which are visible externally. It is also the program's principal verification bottleneck.
| Aspect | Approach |
|---|---|
| Method | Ultrasonic (through-transmission and pulse-echo as applicable) against calibrated reference standards containing known defect sizes |
| Coverage | 100% of structural area on every panel — NDT is never sampled, in either phase |
| Personnel | NAS 410 Level II certified technicians; Level III oversight for technique approval and disposition of marginal indications |
| Acceptance criteria | Per Meridian specification; indications above threshold route to MRB rather than being dispositioned at the inspection station |
| Capacity | Four Level II technicians across three shifts by PA-002 (Achebe, Sorensen, Winfield, plus qualification depth) |
The bottleneck is real and was realized. Risk R-02 anticipated that NDT capacity might not scale with the Phase 2 rate. Issue I-02 records that it did: an NDT queue backlog formed during early Phase 2 ramp, adding roughly four days to panel release cycle time. Decision D-01 resolved it deliberately — qualify a second NDT technician in-house rather than outsource ultrasonic inspection, explicitly to keep traceability in-house. That trade is worth naming: outsourcing would have cleared the queue faster, but would have placed acceptance evidence for a flight-critical structure outside Acme's own traceability chain.
09 Destructive, Dimensional & Measurement Verification
Destructive and mechanical testing
| Test | Purpose | Cadence |
|---|---|---|
| Travelling witness panels | Cured alongside production hardware; verify the cure actually achieved required properties | Per cure cycle |
| Mechanical coupons | Strength and stiffness verification against design allowables | Per material lot; more extensively in Phase 1 |
| Void content / fiber volume fraction | Confirm laminate quality achieved | Per lot and on cause |
| Glass transition temperature (Tg) | Confirm degree of cure | Per lot and after any cure excursion |
Dimensional verification and measurement system analysis
Panel contour and interface features are verified by coordinate metrology against the digital product definition. Before any measurement system is relied upon for acceptance, it is itself verified: Gage R&R studies confirm that observed variation reflects the part rather than the measurement. A capability index computed from an unqualified gauge is a number without meaning, and on a program that transitions to sampling on the strength of capability data, that distinction is load-bearing.
10 Statistical Process Control & the Sampling Transition
This is the central strategic decision in any production ramp: when, and on what evidence, does 100% inspection give way to sampling?
The governing rule on CWP-700. Sampling is earned, never assumed. A characteristic moves from 100% inspection to sampling only when it has demonstrated sustained statistical capability, and it returns to 100% immediately if capability degrades. Key Characteristics and NDT never transition, regardless of how good the data looks — because the consequence of an escape on those is not scrap, it is a structural finding on a flying aircraft.
| Stage | Inspection basis | Evidence required to advance |
|---|---|---|
| Qualification (Phase 1) | 100% of all characteristics, every panel | FAI passed; control plan validated |
| Early ramp (Phase 2 start) | 100% continues while capability data accumulates | Sufficient consecutive conforming panels to establish control limits |
| Demonstrated capability | Standard characteristics move to defined sampling; SPC charts monitor continuously | Process capability sustained above agreed threshold, with a stable, in-control chart |
| Steady state | Sampling on standard characteristics; 100% on Key Characteristics and NDT | Ongoing SPC monitoring; periodic audit of sampled characteristics |
| Capability loss | Immediate reversion to 100% | Root cause found and corrected; capability re-demonstrated before sampling resumes |
Control charts are reviewed by shift, not only in aggregate. A process that is capable overall but drifting on third shift is a real and common failure mode on a three-shift operation — and one that a monthly aggregate capability number would conceal entirely.
11 Nonconformance Detection & MRB Interface
The MRB owns disposition. This strategy owns what reaches it, and how quickly.
| Stage | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Detection | Any characteristic outside specification is documented at the point of detection — inspectors do not disposition at the station |
| Containment | Nonconforming hardware physically segregated and identified before the shift ends; suspect population bounded by lot and cure cycle traceability |
| Routing | Nonconformance record raised with objective evidence — measurement data, NDT indication, cure chart — not a narrative description |
| Disposition | MRB per its own escalation tiers; use-as-is and repair dispositions on Key Characteristics require customer concurrence |
| Closure | Corrective action verified effective before the record closes — not when the action is implemented, but when it is shown to have worked |
Throughput is a quality control. Issue I-03 records an MRB backlog that held two nonconforming panel sets in disposition-pending status for three days at peak Phase 2 volume. A disposition queue is not a neutral delay: it creates pressure to disposition quickly rather than correctly, and it consumes floor space that encourages hardware to be moved before it is cleared. Adding N. Redmond as a dedicated MRB Quality Engineer under PA-002 was a verification-integrity decision, not merely a capacity one.
12 Customer Verification & Source Inspection
| Activity | Approach | Risk managed |
|---|---|---|
| FAI witness | Meridian source inspector witnesses First Article; scheduling confirmed well ahead of the FAI window | R-04 — customer source-inspection availability bottlenecking the FAI gate |
| Acceptance criteria clarity | Every FAI checklist criterion written to be unambiguous to an external auditor before submission | I-04 — two criteria found ambiguous by the customer's auditor, risking inconsistent future interpretation |
| Certificate of Conformance | Issued per shipment with full traceability to lot, cure cycle, NDT record and inspection results | Delivery acceptance |
| Ongoing source inspection | Per Meridian's surveillance arrangement; Acme maintains inspection records available for audit at any time | Customer confidence; audit readiness |
| Engineering change | Any post-CDR change routed through formal contract modification per assumption A-04; re-FAI triggered where AS9102 requires | Configuration integrity |
Why I-04 mattered more than its size suggests. Two ambiguously worded acceptance criteria were caught by Meridian's source-inspection auditor. Nothing nonconforming shipped, and the immediate fix was small. But ambiguous acceptance criteria are how two organizations come to hold different beliefs about what "conforming" means — and that disagreement surfaces at the worst possible moment, on a panel already built. Clarity in acceptance criteria is a verification control in its own right.
13 Rate Readiness Verification
Purchase Order Amendment PA-002 increased the monthly production rate, adding a third shift and expanding quality staffing (decision D-06). A rate increase is a change to the process, and is verified as one.
- Third-shift qualification: operators, inspectors and NDT technicians on the new shift qualified to the same standard before the shift produces acceptable hardware — not qualified in parallel with producing it.
- Capability re-verified at the new rate. Capability demonstrated at two shifts does not transfer automatically to three; SPC data is re-established per shift.
- Autoclave and NDT throughput confirmed against the new rate before commitment — assumption A-02 holds that autoclave capacity suffices without capital investment, and that assumption is tested against actual cycle demand rather than left standing.
- Incoming material flow verified to sustain the higher rate, with dual-source qualification (D-03) reducing the single-source exposure that risk R-01 identified.
14 Quality Metrics
| Metric | What it reveals | Target |
|---|---|---|
| First Pass Yield | Whether the process makes a conforming panel without rework | Improving trend through ramp; stable at steady state |
| Escape rate to customer | Effectiveness of the entire verification chain | Zero |
| Process capability by characteristic and shift | Whether sampling remains justified | Sustained above threshold; reviewed per shift |
| NDT cycle time and queue depth | Leading indicator of the R-02 bottleneck recurring | Within takt; queue not growing |
| MRB disposition turnaround | Whether disposition pressure is building (I-03) | Within agreed turnaround; no aging backlog |
| Scrap and rework cost | Financial consequence of quality performance on a fixed-price contract | Downward trend |
| Supplier PPAP on-time and complete | Incoming material risk (I-05, A-03) | 100% complete on first submission |
15 Risks to the Verification Approach
| Risk | Effect on verification | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| R-02 — NDT capacity does not scale with rate | Inspection becomes the constraint; pressure to reduce coverage | In-house technician qualification (D-01); queue depth monitored as a metric; coverage never reduced |
| R-06 — QMS ownership concentrated in one individual | MRB disposition and FAI signature stall | Deputy signature authority; MRB capability held by Ferraro and Redmond independently |
| R-01 — single-source prepreg lead time | Material shortage forces schedule pressure onto verification windows | Dual-source qualification (D-03); incoming verification proves source equivalence |
| R-04 — customer source-inspection availability | FAI gate waits on customer scheduling | Witness scheduling confirmed early; internal readiness complete before the window opens |
| Rate pressure eroding sampling discipline | Sampling extended to characteristics that have not earned it | Sampling tied explicitly to demonstrated capability; reversion rule is automatic, not discretionary |
Governing relationship. This strategy operates under the AS9100 QMS and the Program Management Plan. It is the parent of the control plan, inspection method sheets, and NDT technique documents. Changes affecting Key Characteristics, acceptance criteria, or inspection frequency require Quality Engineering approval and, where they touch customer-defined requirements, Meridian concurrence through the formal change process.