F2000v1 9

Oshkosh Corporation Classification: Unrestricted
Revision Date User

1.6 2/28/2014 Andrea Krueger
1.7 1/31/2015 Andrea Krueger
Andrea Krueger
1.8 4/30/2017 / Scott Ball
1.9 2/12/2018 Scott Ball

Notes
Added Revisions History Tab, Updated PSW to unclude IPS specific information for Level 1, Added PRINT
NOTES - Performance Tests Tab and updated PRINT NOTES - Welding with attaching copies of
WPS/PQR; finished update of tab footers
Updated PPAP Requirements tab with N/R information and * specific reqs. Removed buyer Number from
PSW; Added conditional formatting to the dimensional tab, split the paint tab into 2 tabs (paint and plating)
& Appearance Approval Tab update, added "Format for example only; Supplier created templates may be
used" for any example template in the workbook
Added Section J labeling tab and PPAP requirements; Updates to PSW materials, reporting, paint
worksheet added surface profile, weld worksheet added piece 1-3, replaced ratings matrix for S,O,D, added
criticality matrix, added QC-112 PPAP check list, added QC-116 COTS exceptions form, added QC-112 to
PPAP requirements matrix and PSW check boxes, capability worksheet replaced with web link, DFMEA &
PFMEA worksheets replaced.
Revised the PSW citation to D.32 for the SSG. Removed QC-116 COTS exception form. Added C of C
Template. Revised QC-112 to include castings section and heading information automatic fill. Revised the
Detection ratings scale.
Production Part Approval Process (PPAP)
Revision 1.9
February 12, 2018
"One System…One Team...One Oshkosh”

PPAP INTRODUCTION
PPAP packages are expected to be received by Oshkosh Corporation by the date assigned by Oshkosh Corporation Designee. If for any
reason you cannot meet this date, contact Oshkosh Corporation Designee for resolution.
It is the policy of Oshkosh Corporation to approve initial samples of supplier provided parts before receiving production orders of those parts
Oshkosh has developed the PPAP PROCESS to facilitate this requirement.
The Default PPAP is Level 2, unless otherwise required by the Oshkosh Segment Quality Representative
PPAP requirements apply to the following parts:
1) Initial submission
2) Engineering Change(s)
3) Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional
4) Correction of Discrepancy
5) Production Break to Oshkosh Corporation > 1 year
6) Change to Optional Construction or Material
7) Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
8) Change in Part Processing
9) Parts produced at Additional Location
10) Other - please specify
Please reference the Oshkosh Corporation Global Supplier Quality Manual for more detail on PPAP
requirements. The Manual can be retrieved on the http://osn.oshkoshcorp.com/ website.
The information in blue is interlinked to the other spreadsheets.

FILL IN THE BLUE SECTIONS FOR AUTOMATIC INPUT INTO FORMS
Part Name PART NAME

Part Number PART NUMBER
Engineering Revision Level ERL
Engineering Revision Level Date ERL DATE
Models / Vehicle MODEL / VEHICLE
Supplier Name SUPPLIER NAME

Supplier Number SUPPLIER NUMBER
Street Address ADDRESS
City CITY
State STATE
Country COUNTRY
Zip ZIP
Phone Number 555-555-5555
Fax Number 555-555-5554
Email Address Emailme@somewhere.com
PPAP: Revision 1.9

4 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
PPAP: Revision 1.9

5 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
Oshkosh Corporation
PPAP Part Submission Requirements
Part Number: PART NUMBER Purchase Order No.
Revision Level: ERL Part Description: PART NAME
ALL PPAP CRITERIA
Supplier Name: SUPPLIER NAME Reason for Request: MUST CONFORM TO
Supplier Number: SUPPLIER NUMBER OSK Program: MODEL / VEHICLE Oshkosh Corporation Customer Specifics
Date Issued: Submission Due Date: defined in the Global Supplier Quality
Manual
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN WRITING BY OSHKOSH CORPORATION:

Default PPAP Submission Level 2 - Unless Otherwise Specified by Oshkosh Corporation
(Segment Specific Requirements may vary)
S = Supplier Must Send Items to Oshkosh Corporation for Approval
* = Applicable material info required (material certification, Certificate of Compliance, or catalog page) with PSW
N/R= Documents are not required for development or submission
Submission Level
PPAP Submission Requirements and Detail Description 1 2 3 4
1.) Part Submission Warrant (PSW) S S S S
2.) Dimensional Results N/R S S S
3.) Design Records (Bubble Print) N/R S S S
4.) PPAP Samples - first production order / upon request prior to production order N/R S S S
5.) Print Notes: (Attach copy of Raw Material Certification / Performance Test Report / Surface Finish, Paint Process, Welding
Documentation such as WPS/PQRs/Welder Certs) * S S *
6.) Supplier Change Request (OSK-F1000) - if applicable S S S S
7.) Design Failure Modes effects Analysis (DFMEA) - if supplier is design responsible N/R N/R S N/R
8.) Process Flow Diagram (PFD) N/R N/R S N/R
9.) Process Failure Modes Effects Analysis (PFMEA) N/R N/R S N/R
10.) Initial Process Capability - for major / critical characteristics - if applicable N/R N/R S N/R
11.) Measurement System Analysis (MSA) - for major / critical characteristics - if applicable N/R N/R S N/R
12.) Process Control Plan N/R N/R S N/R
13.) Appearance Approval Report (AAR) - if applicable N/R N/R S N/R
14.) Checking Aids (Fixture, gage, template, etc) - if applicable N/R N/R S N/R
15.) Records of Compliance with Customer Specific Requirements - if applicable N/R N/R S N/R
16.) Photo Documentation (Master Sample of PPAP parts & Section J-Labeling) S S S N/R
17.) Tooling Photo Documentation - if applicable N/R S S N/R
18.) QC-112 PPAP Check List N/R N/R S N/R
Additional Submission Instructions below:
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Page 6
Date: 12/1/17
PPAP SAMPLE PARTS - LABEL
Send identified sample(s), such as, Piece#1, Piece#2, Piece#3, etc to Oshkosh Corporation with appropriate label.
Please complete and attach this page on the outside of each package in plain view of a fork lift/material
handler/operator. Put the Packing slip pocket near the label.
In the event parts are “Loose” shipped, a label should be placed on each part. This would also apply to parts
laying on pallets. Label on a painted part must be wire tied or attached in a way such that the painted surface
is protected from label adhesion.
PPAP SAMPLE PARTS

INSPECTION VERIFICATION REQUIRED
Purchased Order#:
Part Number:
Revision Level:
Supplier Name:
Supplier Number:
Supplier Inspected By:
PPAP: Revision 1.9

7 of 75
Date: 12/1/2017
PPAP: Revision 1.9

8 of 75
Date: 12/1/2017
Part Submission Warrant

Part Name PART NAME Oshkosh Part Number PART NUMBER
Shown on Drawing Number Supplier Part Number
Engineering Revision Level ERL Dated ERL DATE

Safety and/or Government Regulation Yes No Purchase Order No.
ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION CUSTOMER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
SUPPLIER NAME SUPPLIER NUMBER

Organization Name & Supplier/Vendor Code Customer Name/Division
ADDRESS
Street Address Buyer
CITY STATE ZIP U.S.A.

City Region Postal Code Country
MATERIALS REPORTING
Compliant to requirements stated in the Suppliers Standards Guide (Section D.32) referencing Hazardous Materials.
Yes No
REASON FOR SUBMISSION (Check at least one)
Initial submission Change to Optional Construction or Material
Engineering Change(s) Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional Change in Part Processing
Correction of Discrepancy Parts produced at Additional Location
Production Break to Oshkosh Corporation > 1 year Other - please specify
REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one)

Level 1 - Warrant only submitted to customer. *Applicable material info required (material certification, Certificate of Compliance, or catalog page)
Level 2 - Warrant with product samples, ISIR, and Material/Performance/Surface Finish/Paint Test Results
(Check items that have been submitted within this PPAP submission)
1. Part Submission Warrant (PSW)
2. Dimensional results (ISIR)
3. Design Record / Drawing 5a. Print Notes: Material Tests 5d. Print Notes: Part Identification
4. PPAP Samples 5b. Print Notes: Surface Finish Tests 5e. Print Notes: Paint, Plating, Coating Tests
5. Print Notes (check all that apply) 5c. Print Notes: Functional Tests 5f. Welding
6. Engineering Change Records / Deviations
Level 3 - All Level 2 Requirements in addition DFMEA, PFD, PFMEA, Control Plan, Initial Process Capability, and MSA
(Check items that have been submitted within this PPAP Submission - See PPAP Requirements Tab for Definition)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Level 4
(Check items that have been submitted within this PPAP Submission)
1. Part Submission Warrant (PSW)

2. Dimensional results (ISIR)
3. Design Record / Drawing
4. PPAP Samples
5. Confirmation of conformance to all Print Notes: Yes No n/a
Is each Customer Tool properly tagged and numbered?
Yes No n/a
Declaration:
I have noted on this part submission warrant any deviation from the associated design record and/or any areas of non-compliance to the Oshkosh
Corporation requirements. If Yes, Explain _____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Organization Authorized Signature Date
Print Name Phone No. 555-555-5555 Fax No.

Title E-mail
FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY

(Level 4 PPAP's do not require signed PSW)
PPAP Warrant Disposition:
Approved Rejected Other
Customer Signature Date
Print Name Customer Tracking Number (optional)

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT C: (Applies to all FMTV Technical Data)
9 of 75 PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
Distribution authorized to US government agencies and their contractors, Reason: Administrative or Operational Use. Date of Determination (Part Submission Warrant
Supplier Completion Date). Other requests for this document shall be referred to: The Project Manager, Medium Tactical Vehicles, Attn: Engineering Director, Mail Stop
#500, 6501 East 11 Mile Road, Warren, MI 48397-5000 DSN 786-6622 or Commercial (586) 282-6622

Date: 12/1/17
PPAP ELEMENTS CHECK LIST
SUPPLIER NAME: SUPPLIER NAME PART NUMBER:
SUPPLIER #: SUPPLIER NUMBER PART DESCRIPTION:
REVISION LEVEL:
(today's) DATE:
Sample Production Parts

Part Submission Warrant
Process Flow Diagram

Engineering Changes
Appearance Approval
Material Performance
Qualified Lab Docs

Process Capability
Design Record
Checking Aids
Results/Print Notes
Control Plan
DFMEA
PFMEA
Testing
MSA
Dimensional
2.2.18 2.2.9 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.11 2.2.8 2.2.13 2.2.16 2.2.10 2.2.12 2.2.14
Elements shaded green (above) indicate minimum submittal for interim approval
AIAG-PPAP PPAP Element
Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) - (If Applicable)
Is this component (or a sub component) procured through a distributor?
1
Is this component (or sub component) commercially available to the general public under the
manufacturers’ part number AND / OR does the print state EAR99 (Commercial)?
2
Is OSK procuring the manufacturers part number in an unaltered state?
3
4 If the answers are "YES" to questions 1-3, then the below requirements are needed per the GSQM D
Are the minimum PPAP elements, including a product specification sheet, provided per GSQM
5 Defense Addendum 13.2?
Is a Certificate of Conformance on the company's letterhead affirming the following:
1.) Article is commercially available 2.) Part meets requirements of print 3.) Including part
number and revision level 4.) Signed by representative within organization that has decision
making authority?
6
COTS Plus - Are any performance requirements not satisfied by the testing outlined on the
product specification sheet / catalog page?
7
8 If the answer is "YES" in question 7, then supplemental testing and results are req
2.2.18 PSW
Is the current copy of the PPAP workbook utilized? (Note: See Oshkosh Supplier Network or
2.2.18 Reliance for latest revision- located: https://osn.oshkoshcorp.com)
2.2.18 Are all sections completed properly and the PSW signed and dated?
2.2.18 Does revision level & date on the PSW match the revision level & date on the drawing?
2.2.18 The PO # field is completed and it matches the drawing Rev/Date?
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
2.2.18 Is the Manufacturer & Customer name accurate & complete?
2.2.18 Is the buyer's name included?
2.2.18 Is the Materials Report Section in compliance with Suppliers Standards Guide (Section D.32) ?
2.2.18 Are the reason(s) for PPAP submittal accurate AND checked?
2.2.18 Is the correct Submission level checked AND applicable elements checked?
2.2.9 Dimensional Results / Print Notes
2.2.9 Are the dimensional results, dated-signed and relatively current?
2.2.9 Are 3 parts measured as required for Level 3 PPAP?
2.2.9 Is 1 part measured for sub-tier level drawing?
Are the TOLERANCES properly recorded?

2.2.9
Are the MIN / MAX spec limits on the ISIR correct according to the TOLERANCE limits on the
2.2.9 print?
2.2.9 Are the dimensional results within specification?

If dimensional results for each of the 3 pieces are identical, is there justification for the exact
2.2.9 values recorded? (it otherwise appears to be pencil-whipped)
2.2.9 Are Standard or Metric units properly recorded according to the print ?
2.2.9 Are proper GAGE TYPES used for the specified tolerance (adequate discrimination)
2.2.9 Are proper GAGE TYPES used for the application (calipers / tape measures have limited use)
2.2.9 Are multiple dimensions ALL listed and ALL verified (example 2x's, 6x's, etc.)?
2.2.9 Are MSA / GRR / Capability Studies provided for Critical Characteristics?
2.2.9 Are Significant/Critical characteristics in bold print and easily found on report.
2.2.9 For multi-cavity tooling, at least 1 pc per cavity must have a complete layout
2.2.9 Print Notes
Are all print notes addressed?

2.2.9
Are there requirements in the Notes for which Certifications are needed? (Painting, Plating,
2.2.9 Welding, material, traceability, performance testing)
Are three pieces verified and the results recorded for each print note as required for Level 3
PPAP?
2.2.9
2.2.9 Is the Print Notes Report signed and dated?
2.2.1 Design Record
2.2.1 Is balloon drawing provided on OSK / AOPN drawing?
2.2.1 Is balloon drawing provided legible?
2.2.1 There are SC / CC's identified on the print? (no = NA)
The drawing or design record is correct and at the proper engineering/revision level and matches
2.2.1 P.O.?
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
2.2.1 Are all dimensions including notes (weld symbols, etc.) ballooned on the drawing?
Authorized Engineering Change Docs (F1000 / QC1000)/Customer Engineering approval

2.2.2 & 2.2.3
Is there an approved Deviation Request (QC-1000 / F1000) included for all Dimensions, Notes,
2.2.3 and print discrepancies that do not meet requirements?
Is the F1000 approval valid for the order produced?

2.2.2 & 2.2.3
2.2.4 DFMEA
The supplier is design responsible: The DFMEA is included within the PPAP OR there is a record
indicating it was reviewed & approved by OSK?
2.2.4
Does the print indicate that the component is "Source Control" or "Vendor Item Control"? (no = NA)
2.2.4
Is the DFMEA prepared using current AIAG guidelines?

2.2.4
Significant Characteristics (Special/ Critical) are identified and captured within the DFMEA (no=
NA)
2.2.4
Oshkosh is design responsible: There are SC / CC's present on the print (no = NA)
2.2.4
Oshkosh is design responsible and the part is manufactured by OSK: Are the sub component
2.2.4 level PPAP's present with submittal? (no = NA)
2.2.5 Process Flow Diagram(s)
Does the PPAP documentation cite specific print note requirements (associated with product or
process) in Flow / PFMEA/ Control Plan (For Example Mil-STD-130 Part Marking ID)
2.2.5
2.2.5 Does the Flow Diagram reflect the entire process (Receiving, outside processing)
2.2.5 Are the process steps for the Process Flow, PFMEA and Control Plan aligned?
2.2.6 PFMEA
Has the PFMEA been constructed utilizing the OSK ranking worksheet for Severity and
2.2.6 Occurrences?
Are there SC / CC identified by the Supplier? "NO" = N/A (refer to criticality matrix in Global
2.2.6 Supplier Quality Manual)
In cases where SC/CC have been identified, does the supplier have SPC or 100% inspection for
2.2.6 them noted in the current Control column?
2.2.6 Are Detection values correct for Visual Inspection per AIAG? (Minimum 7 or 8)
Are Recommended Actions cited for the highest RPN?

2.2.6
2.2.6
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
Control Plan
2.2.7
Has the supplier indicated the Control Plan type? (Prototype / Production) and the product and
2.2.7 process characteristics properly identified per the AIAG definitions?
This control plan covers all activities from receiving inspection to shipment.
2.2.7
All special product/process characteristics are included in the control plan.

2.2.7
The supplier is using Control Method tools such as SPC or 100% inspection for the Special
2.2.7 Characteristics defined?
2.2.7
Initial Process Studies

2.2.11
There are SC/CC identified (on print or supplier process): The supplier has a CPK of 1.33 for
Significant Characteristics and/or CPK of 1.67 for Critical Characteristics.
2.2.11
There are SC/CC identified (on print or supplier process) and the supplier instead of Capability
2.2.7 Studies, conducts 100% inspection, which is included on their control plan?
The initial process studies were conducted using the required number of samples and using
production processing, gauging and materials.
2.2.7
MSA
2.2.8
There are SC/CC identified (on print or supplier process) and MSA is included in PPAP?
2.2.8
The MSA has been constructed using the Defense Segment Instructions Guide (located:
2.2.8 https://osn.oshkoshcorp.com)
The MSA Report / Checklist was used to ensure completeness (included within the Defense
2.2.8 Segment Instructions Guide)
The PPAP package contains a photo of the measurement tool

2.2.8
Appearance Approval
2.2.13
Appearance Approval Report submitted?

2.2.13
Checking Aids
2.2.16
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
All product specific checking aides, fixtures, test stands and Mylar have been listed on the Control
Plan.
2.2.16
The supplier has provided preventive maintenance / calibration records for the checking aides.
2.2.16
Do all aspects of the checking aids agree with part dimension requirements?
2.2.16
2.2.10 Material / Performance Testing
2.2.10 Are material certifications included for all requirements specified on the print?
Are material certification(s) provided (where no specification is given) to establish a base-line of
2.2.10 product acceptability
2.2.10 Are material certification(s) dated relatively recent? (within 12 months)
2.2.10 Are material certification(s) signed and dated?
2.2.10 Are foreign Certification(s) translated into English
2.2.10 Are material certification(s) provided for sub components
2.2.10 Are material certification(s) included for hardware called-out on the print?
2.2.10 Do certification(s) included explicitly support standards cited (example: SAE/MIL/ASTM)?
Do Material certification(s) show adherence to specified temperature requirements ?

2.2.10
Are test results included for product material(s) when performance or functional requirements are
2.2.10 specified by the design record AND/OR the suppliers Control Plan.
2.2.12 Qualified Lab Docs
2.2.12 Do test reports indicate testing was done internally by the supplier?
2.2.12 Does the test report indicate testing was done externally by a 3rd party?
Do the Material or Performance Tests results meet the requirements outlined in section 13.12 of
2.2.12 the GSQM Defense Addendum?
2.2.14 Sample Production Parts
2.2.14 Are the PPAP parts being shipped to OSK?
2.2.15 Master Sample (photo)
2.2.15 Do they capture paint / no paint zones?
2.2.15 Do they capture the part marking ID and it is correct per print requirements?
2.2.15 Do they capture the part significant view angles?
(UID-Specific requirements) Is the sample label photo taken directly perpendicular to the label, at
2.2.15 approximately 1 foot away, with no glare on the label?
2.2.17 Customer Specific Requirements (CFAT)
2.2.17 This part has CFAT requirements, it does comply, but is not finalized
Electrical
Do circuits, connectors and splices on print agree?
Has circuit testing been completed? Spec 400 sec 5.6 (or applicable standards)
Do circuit test results agree with the print?
Are test results included for testing specified on print?
Are continuity tests conducted per spec 400 (or applicable standards) AND identified within the
Control Plan?
Are there 3 pieces tested for ALL electrical tests required?
Finishing / Paint
Does the submittal include actual salt spray test results including Qualified Lab Documentation?
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
Do paint worksheets verify conformance to pre-treatment, coating, mil thickness, adhesion,
permeability for 3 pieces?
Do plating certifications explicitly state adherence to print requirement?
Do paint worksheets verify conformance to blast profile?
Are oven cure times & temperatures recorded?
Weld
Are all weld lengths, sizes, types & locations cited on the ballooned drawing
Are the WPS AND PQR's #'s referenced on the PPAP worksheet?
Are the WPS AND PQR's #'s INCLUDED in the PPAP submittal?
Are the WPS and PQR authorized by a CWI (or equivalent authority)?
Are 3 weld features measured as required for Level 3 PPAP?

If WPS not required per AWS (for example), are appropriate weld documentation and verification
methods included?
Castings
Are personnel performing radiographic inspection reports certified in accordance with ASNT
(American Society for Non-Destructive Testing) Level 2?
Are the ASNT (American Society for Non-Destructive Testing) certified radiographic procedures
being approved by a level 3 Technician?
Are certifications submitted within the PPAP for personnel verifying compliance to ASNT
(American Society for Non-Destructive Testing)?
Are personnel performing radiographic inspections certified in accordance with NAS 410 Level 2?
Are the NAS 410 certified radiographic procedures being approved by a level 3 Technician?
Are certifications submitted within the PPAP for personnel verifying compliance to NAS 410?
Is the Inspection laboratory accredited (e.g. A2LA, ISO17025 for radiographic inspection per
ASTM E1742 (film) or E1255 (digital)?
Does the report include all images all routine and random positions or in accordance with the
positions chart (if provided)?
Does the report reference the correct inspection standards as stated within AMS 2175A (ASTM
E155/E2422 for aluminum, ASTM E186/E446 for steel, iron)
Does the report specify casting grade and does it match drawing requirements?
Does the report specify casting class and does it match drawing requirements?
Does the report include melt or heat lot numbers?
Is radiographic examination sampling conducted per the OSK Global Supplier Quality Manual
Addendum (section 10)?
Do radiographic images show that Image Quality Indicator (IQI) placement is compliant to 2-2T per
ASTM E1255 (digital) or ASTM E1742 (film)?
Does the print notes, PFMEA and/or Control Plan document address gate, riser and parting line
projections comply with AMS2175A table 3 (page 11 of 20)?
Does the control plan reflect radiographic sampling frequency in accordance with the print note /
Global Supplier Quality Manual?
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
Does the control plan reflect radiographic sampling for all mold cavities in accordance with the print
note / Global Supplier Quality Manual?
Is there evidence within the Control Plan that visual inspections were performed with ambient
lighting that is not less than 75 foot-candles?
Does the control plan specify that castings are 100% visually examined per AMS2175A, 4.3.1?
Is a written procedure listed within the Process Control Plan as to how to inspect the component
IAW E1255 (digital image), section A1.5.2 or E1742 (film image), section 6.1?
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
ERL
7/5/2021
Master Sample Picture
Requirements (CFAT)
Customer Specific
2.2.15 2.2.17
interim approval
PPAP Submission Comments
Y N N/A Comments
e needed per the GSQM Defense Addendum 13.2
esting and results are required
Y N N/A Comments
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
Y N N/A Comments
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
Y N N/A Comments
x x N/A Comments
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
PPAP: Revision 1.9
Date: 12/1/17
COMPANY Certificate of Conformance (CoC)
LETTERHEAD Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS)
REQUIRED
Supplier Name:
Supplier Number:
Part Description:
Part Number:
Drawing Number: Revision:
The following are the minimum PPAP elements that must be submitted with a COTS item.
 Design Record (balloon drawing)

 Engineering Change Documents (if applicable)
 Customer Engineering Approval (if applicable)
 Dimensional Results
 Sample Production Parts
 Master Sample (photo)
 Customer Specific Requirements (CFAT) (if applicable)
 Part Submission Warrant
I certify that the items / materials referenced above are commercially available.
I certify that the above mentioned items/materials meet the purchase order requirements and
referenced drawing specifications and standards. I also certify I am an authorized supplier
representative.
Signature Title Date
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
oC)
ion:
mitted with a COTS item.
ally available.
ase order requirements and

m an authorized supplier
Date
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
DIMENSIONAL RESULTS
ORGANIZATION: SUPPLIER NAME PART NUMBER: PART NUMBER
SUPPLIER NUMBER: SUPPLIER NUMBER PART NAME: PART NAME
NAME OF INSPECTION FACILITY: ENGINEERING REVISION LEVEL ERL

DATE:
Supplier required to provide marked up drawing to identify items inspected.
SPECIFICATION / NO
DIMENSION / TOLERANCE GAGE QTY. ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS (DATA)
ITEM LIMITS OK T
SPECIFICATION TYPE* TESTED
- + MIN MAX Piece 1 Piece 2 Piece 3 OK
ex 4 1 1 3 5 8.00 3.00 2.00
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
*Traceable to NIST Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results.
PRINT NAME SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
PPAP: Revision 1.9

27 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
PRINT NOTES
(ATTACH COPY OF RAW MATERIAL CERTIFICATION, SURFACE FINISH,
& PART IDENTIFICATION)

DATE:
Supplier required to provide marked up drawing to identify all "PRINT NOTES" verified.
SPECIFICATION / NO
GAGE QTY. ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS (DATA)
ITEM SPECIFICATION LIMITS OK T
TYPE TESTED
MIN MAX Piece 1 Piece 2 Piece 3 OK
Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results.
PPAP: Revision 1.9

28 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
PRINT NOTES
(ATTACH COPY OF RAW MATERIAL CERTIFICATION, SURFACE FINISH,
& PART IDENTIFICATION)

DATE:
SPECIFICATION / NO
TYPE TESTED
PPAP: Revision 1.9

29 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
PRINT NOTES
(ATTACH COPY OF PERFORMANCE TESTS )


DATE:
SPECIFICATION / NO
TYPE TESTED
PPAP: Revision 1.9

30 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
PRINT NOTES
(ATTACH COPY OF PERFORMANCE TESTS )


DATE:
SPECIFICATION / NO
TYPE TESTED
PPAP: Revision 1.9

31 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
DEFENSE PRINT NOTES - PAINT

(PAINT & COATING TEST RESULTS)
ORGANIZATION: SUPPLIER NAME PART NUMB PART NUMBER
SUPPLIER NUMBER: SUPPLIER NUMBER PART NAME:PART NAME

DATE:
Document Painting Method / Industry Standard used to prepare these components.
Method # / Finishing Requirement on Drawing:

Cleaning Standard Utilized:
Pretreat Standard Utilized:
SPECIFICATION / NO
GAGE QTY. SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)
Characteristic Standard LIMITS OK T
TYPE TESTED
Prime Coat:
Blast / Surface Profile
Thickness*
Thickness (including blast profile)*
Permeability
Adhesion
Oven Cure Time (if used)
Ambient Cure Time (if used)
Salt Spray
Top Coat:
Thickness (over primer)*

Total Thickness (reference)*
Permeability
Adhesion
Ambient Cure Time (if used)
Oven Cure Time (if used)
* Rejection will not be made based on coating thickness in excess of the maximum alone, but on a subsequent performance failure per MIL-DTL 53072 Sec 4.2.3.3.
Defense Segment: Compliant to the requirements stated in the Suppliers Standards Guide (Section
(Circle) Yes / No Signed by:
D.32) referencing Hazardous Materials.
PPAP: Revision 1.9

32 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
PRINT NOTES
(PLATING TEST RESULTS)
ORGANIZATION: SUPPLIER NAME PART NUMB PART NUMBER

SUPPLIER NUMBER: SUPPLIER NUMBER PART NAME:PART NAME

DATE:
Document Plating Method / Industry Standard used to prepare these components.
Plating Type Required:
Industry Standard or Specification Listed on Drawing:
Plating Supplier (If Tier 2):
ATTACH CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE HERE
Defense Segment: Compliant to the requirements stated in the Suppliers Standards Guide (Section
(Circle) Yes / No Signed by:
D.32) referencing Hazardous Materials.

If Any Questions - Please Contact Quality Representative from Segment Associated
ORGANIZATION PHONE NO. DATE AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER DATE
SIGNATURE REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE
PPAP: Revision 1.9

33 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
APPEARANCE APPROVAL REPORT

(COMMERCIAL PAINT RESULTS)
PART DRAWING APPLICATION
NUMBER PART NUMBER NUMBER (VEHICLES) MODEL / VEHICLE
PART BUYER E/C LEVEL DATE
NAME PART NAME CODE ERL
ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING SUPPLIER / VENDOR SUPPLIER / VENDOR
NAME LOCATION CODE CODE SUPPLIER NUMBER
REASON FOR PART SUBMISSION WARRANT SPECIAL SAMPLE RE-SUBMISSION OTHER
SUBMISSION PRE TEXTURE FIRST PRODUCTION SHIPMENT ENGINEERING CHANGE
APPEARANCE EVALUATION
Coating Spec (if Applicable) Attribute Frequency SPECIFICATIONS
Color Match
TopCoat Gloss
Crosshatch Adhesion
Solvent Resistence
Pencil Hardness
Refer to Applicable QACs and or Specification on print/PO (Contact Buyer)
Film Thickness (Powder)
Film Thickness (Liquid)
Production Adhesion Test
Orange Peel
Salt Spray Creepage
Edge Coverage
COLOR EVALUATION
Color Lot Part # SPECIFICATIONS
JLG Specifications Refer to: Color Code 4150613

JerrDan Specifications Refer to: Color Code Chart 4150613
Pierce Specifications Refer to:
McNeilus Specifications Refer to: TBD
COMMENTS
Document Painting Method / Industry Standard used to prepare these components.
Method # / Finishing Requirement on Drawing:
Cleaning Standard Utilized:
Painting Standard Utilized:
PPAP: Revision 1.9

34 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
SPECIFICATI GAGE NOT

Notes:
Characteristic SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA) OK
ON / LIMITS TYPE OK
MIN MAX Piece 1 Piece 2 Piece 3
PPAP: Revision 1.9

35 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
PRINT NOTES
(ATTACH COPY OF WPS/PQR DOCUMENTATION)

DATE:
Supplier required to provide marked up print to identify ALL Weld items.
CHECK FOR CONFORMANCE
PQR# NO
ITEM WELD SYMBOL WELD DESCRIPTION WPS# (IF NOT PRE- Piece 1 Piece 2 Piece 3 OK T
QUALIFIED)
OK
WELD SIZE WELD LENGTH WELD SIZE WELD LENGTH WELD SIZE WELD LENGTH
PRINT NAME SIGNATURE TITLE
PPAP: Revision 1.9

36 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
Criticality Matrix
10 <CC> Critical Characteristic
Must be addressed on Control Plan
9 with 100% inspection or 1.67 Cpk
7 <SC> Significant Characteristic

Severity
Must be addressed on Control Plan

6 with 100% inspection or 1.33 Cpk
4 Continuous Improvement Zone

Address top 20% Failure Modes /
3 Causes (Pareto'd by RPN)
1 Low Risk Zone

Address as needed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Occurrence
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
SEVERITY RATING SCALE

CUSTOMER SEVERITY OF EFFECT ON SEVERITY OF EFFECT ON ASSY
RANK
EFFECT PRODUCT PROCESS EFFECT
Potential failure mode affects safe
Hazardous
vehicle operation and/or involves May endanger operator (machine
10 without
Failure to Meet noncompliance with government or assembly) without warning. warning
Safety and/or regulation without warning.
Regulatory Potential failure mode affects safe
Requirements vehicle operation and/or involves May endanger operator (machine Hazardous
9 with warning
noncompliance with government or assembly) with warning.
regulation with warning
Loss of primary function (vehicle / 100% of production run may have
Major
item inoperable, but does not affect 8 to be scrapped, line shutdown, or Disruption
Loss or safe operation). stop ship.
Degradation of A portion of the production run
Primary Degradation of primary function may have to be scrapped,
Function Significant
(vehicle / item operable but at a 7 deviation from primary process Disruption
reduced level of performance) including decreased line speed or
added manpower.
Loss of secondary function
100% of production run may have
(vehicle / item operable, but does
6 to be reworked off line and
Loss or not affect safe operation, but
accepted.
Degradation of secondary functions inoperable) Moderate
Secondary Degradation of secondary function Disruption
Function A portion of the production run
(vehicle / item operable, but
5 may have to be reworked off line
secondary functions operate at
and accepted.
reduced level of performance)
Condition impacting a tertiary

function but vehicle remains 100% of production run may have
operable, appearance or audible 4 to be reworked in station before it
noise, or item does not conform and is processed.
noticed by >75% of customers
Minor
Disruption
Loss or
function but vehicle remains A portion of the production run
Degradation of
operable, appearance or audible 3 may have to be reworked in
Tertiary
noise, or item does not conform and station before it is processed.
Function
noticed by ~50% of customers

function but vehicle remains
Slight inconvenience to process,
operable, appearance or audible 2 Annoyance
operation, or operator.
noise, or item does not conform and
noticed by <25% of customers
No effect No discernible effect 1 No discernible effect. None
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
OCCURRENCE RATING SCALE

OCCURRENCE OF OCCURRENCE OF OCCURRENCE OF
LIKELIHOOD OF
CAUSE CAUSE CAUSE RANK
FAILURE
FROM TESTING FOR DFMEA FOR PFMEA
Observed on over New technology/new design One occurrence

Very High 10
50% of test assets. with no history. per part/machine
Failure is inevitable with new

One occurrence
design, new application, or
per shift 9
change in duty cycle/operating
*(>1 in 5)
conditions.
Observed on Failure is likely with new design, One occurrence

High >25-50% of test new application, or change in per day 8
assets. duty cycle/operating conditions. *(1 in 5)
Failure is uncertain with new

One occurrence
design, new application, or
per week 7
change in duty cycle/operating
*(1 in 25)
conditions.
Frequent failures associated One occurrence
with similar designs or in design every 2 weeks 6
simulation and testing. *(1 in 50)
Observed on Occasional failures associated One occurrence
Moderate >12.5-25% of test with similar designs or in design per month 5
assets. simulation and testing. *(1 in 100)
Isolated Failures associated with One occurrence
similar design or in design per 3 months 4
simulation and testing. *(1 in 300)
Observed on up to Only isolated failures associated One occurrence

Low 12.5% of test with almost identical design or in per 6 months 3
assets. design simulation and testing. *(1 in 600)
No observed failures associated One occurrence

with almost identical design or in per year 2
No occurrences design simulation and testing. *(1 in 1200)
Very Low observed during
testing. Less than one
Failure is eliminated through
occurrence per year 1
preventive control.
*(<1 in 1200)
*Occurrence frequency for PFMEA should be calculated based upon yearly production volumes
(for example, if 1200 units are produced each year, one occurrence per month equals 1 in 100 units produced)
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
Detection Rating Scale

DETECTION
Rank CRITERIA
PROBABILITY
No detection
10 No current process control; Cannot detect or is not analyzed.
opportunity
Not likely to detect

9 Failure Mode and/or Error (Cause) is not easily detected (e.g. random audits)
at any stage
Problem Detection Failure Mode detection post-processing by operator through

8
Post Processing visual/tactile/audible means.
Failure Mode detection in-station by operator through visual/tactile/audible

Problem Detection
7 means or post-processing through use of attribute gauging (go/no go, manual
at Source
torque check/clicker wrench, etc.)
Failure Mode detection post-processing by operator through use of variable
Problem Detection
6 gauging or in-station by operator through use of attribute gauging (go/no go,
Post Processing
manual torque check/clicker wrench, etc.)
Failure Mode or Error (Cause) detection in-station by operator through use of
Problem Detection variable gauging or by automated controls in-station that will detect discrepant
5
at Source part and notify operator (light, buzzer, etc.). Gauging performed on setup and
first-piece check (for set-up causes only).
Problem Detection Failure Mode detection post-processing by automated controls that will detect
4
Post Processing discrepant part and lock part to prevent further processing.
Failure Mode detection in-station by automated controls that will detect

Problem Detection
3 discrepant part and prevent automatically lock part in station to prevent further
at Source
processing.
Error Detection
Error (Cause) detection in-station by automated controls that will detect error
2 and/or Problem
and prevent discrepant part from being made.
Prevention
Detection not Error (Cause) prevention as a result of fixture design, machine design or part
1 applicable; Failure design. Discrepant parts cannot be made because item has been error-proofed
Prevention by process/product design.
This scale was adapted from the AIAG FMEA Manual (4th Edition)
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
DFMEA - DESIGN FAILURE MODES EFFECTS ANALYSIS

(Format for example only; Supplier created templates may be used)
System
Subsystem Design Responsibility: FMEA Number:
Component:___________________________________________ Key Date: Prepared by:
Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s): MODEL / VEHICLE Date (Orig.):
Core Team: Date (Rev.):
Current Current
Action Results
Occurrence
Design Design Responsibility
Classification
Detection
Severity
Potential Potential Potential
Item / Recommended & Target
RPN
Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Controls Controls Actions
Function Action(s) Completion
OCC
RPN
Mode of Failure of Failure
SEV
DET
Prevention Detection Date Taken & Effective
Date
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
PROCESS/INSPECTION FLOWCHART
Product Program MODEL / VEHICLE Issue Date ECL ERL

Supplier Name SUPPLIER NAME Part Name PART NAME
Supplier Location ADDRESS Part Number PART NUMBER
Legend:
Operation Transportation Inspection Delay Storage
Step Operation or Event Description of Evaluation

Operation or Event and Analysis Methods
Operation
Transportation
Inspection
Delay
Storage
Change History
Date Revision
PPAP: Revision 1.9

42 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
PFMEA - PROCESS FAILURE MODES & EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Print # PART NUMBER Rev. ERL FMEA Number:

Item: n/a Process Responsibility: Prepared by:
Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s): MODEL / VEHICLE Key Date: Date (Orig.)
Core Team: Date (Rev.)
Current Current
Classification
Action Results
Occurrence
Process Process Responsibility
Detection
Severity
Process Step / Potential Potential Potential
Recommended & Target
RPN
Function Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Controls Controls
Action(s) Completion Actions
OCC
SEV
DET
Mode of Failure of Failure Prevention Detection
Date Taken & Effective
Date
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
Action Results
RPN
PPAP: Revision 1.9

Date: 12/1/17
CONTROL PLAN
Prototype Pre-Launch Production
Control Plan Number Key Contact/Phone Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
1/1/1996 1/1/1996
Part Number/Latest Change Level Core Team Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
PART NUMBER
Part Name/Description Supplier/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
PART NAME
Supplier/Plant Supplier Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
SUPPLIER NUMBER
PART/ MACHINE, CHARACTERISTICS SPECIA METHODS
PROCESS NAME/
PROCES DEVICE L PRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION/ SAMPLE REACTION
OPERATION
S JIG, TOOLS CHAR. SPECIFICATION/ MEASUREMENT CONTROL PLAN
DESCRIPTION NO. PRODUCT PROCESS
NUMBER FOR MFG. CLASS SIZE FREQ. METHOD
TOLERANCE TECHNIQUE
PPAP: Revision 1.9

45 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
PPAP MASTER SAMPLE "PICTURE" DOCUMENTATION

DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ERL
Supplier is required to visually document the Master Sample (PPAP Parts):

1.) Document how the parts are labeled. To include any date codes, vendor codes, etc.. (if applicable)
2.) Document the parts as a whole what they look like in the final state in which they are provided to Oshkosh Corporation.
PICTURES OF MASTER SAMPLE LABELING
PICTURES OF MASTER SAMPLE PART
PPAP: Revision 1.9

46 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
PPAP MASTER SAMPLE "PICTURE" DOCUMENTATION

DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ERL
Supplier is required to visually document the Master Sample (PPAP Parts):

1.) Document how the parts are labeled. To include any date codes, vendor codes, etc.. (if applicable)
2.) Document the parts as a whole what they look like in the final state in which they are provided to Oshkosh Corporation.
PICTURES OF MASTER SAMPLE LABELING
PPAP: Revision 1.9

47 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
SECTION J LABELING VALIDATION

TOOL / FIXTURE NUMBER: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ERL

DATE:
Supplier is required to provide sample of SSG Section J compliant label(s) and document with Photo in PPAP workbook
PICTURE OF SECTION J COMPLIANT LABELING
PPAP: Revision 1.9

48 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
TOOLING & FIXTURES - PROPERTY OF OSHKOSH CORP.

TOOL / FIXTURE NUMBER: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ERL

DATE:
Supplier is required to identify all Oshkosh Owned Tools & Fixtures and document with Photo in PPAP workbook
PHOTO OF OSHKOSH OWNED TOOLING AND FIXTURES
PPAP: Revision 1.9

49 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
Clock on the link below to access a template that will display control charts, histogram and Cp/Cpk results
Once the template has been populated you can copy and paste it onto this worksheet
http://asq.org/sixsigma/2008/05/process-capability-study-1500.html?shl=090025
PPAP: Revision 1.9

50 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORT

ATTRIBUTE METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser

PART NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Date Performed
PART NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Upper Limit Lower Limit
ATTRIBUTE DATA
# XT a P'a After entering data, follow the directions on the tab marked
1 0.000 'Graph' to create the Gage Performance Curve
2 0.000
3 0.000
4 0.000
5 0.000
6 0.000
7 0.000
8 0.000
9 0.000
FROM THE GRAPH

ENTER THE FOLLOWING:
XT (P=.5) =
XT (P=.995) =
XT (P=.005) =
Measurement Unit Analysis

Bias Repeatability
B = R =
= =
t Statistic
t = 31.3 IBI / R t0.025,19 = 2.093
=
=
Result
Reviewed
Title
PPAP: Revision 1.9

51 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
Directions for Gage Performance Curve for Attribute Analytical Method Form
1) Click Tools - Data Analysis - Regression

(If Data Analysis is not available load Analysis Tool Pak from the Add-Ins menu)
2) In the box for Input Y Range select the cells GR&R ATT(L)!D14:D22
3) In the box for Input X Range select the cells GR&R ATT(L)!B14:B22
4) In the box for Output range select the cells below A23:M60
5) Check Line Fit Plots
6) Press OK
7) Copy the Line Fit plot graph to the space on the Analytic sheet
8) Change the graph title to Gage Performance Curve
9) Change the x axis to Xt
10) Change the y axis to Probability
PPAP: Revision 1.9

52 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
ATTRIBUTE RISK METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
PART NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
PART NAME
Characteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
DATA TABLE
Reference
PART A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 Reference Value Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Date: 12/1/17
ATTRIBUTE RISK METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
PART NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
PART NAME
Characteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
Risk Analysis
A * B Crosstabulation
B
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
A
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
B * C Crosstabulation
C
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
B
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
A * C Crosstabulation
C
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
A
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
Kappa A B C
A -
B -
C -
DETERMINATION
AxB
AxC
BxC
Approved for Use Date

Date: 12/1/17
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET

VARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
PART NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
PART NAME
Characteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower Upper
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
APPRAISER/ PART AVERAGE

TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE xa=
5 R ra=
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE xb=
10 R rb=
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE xc=
15 R rc=
16. PART X=
AVERAGE Rp=
17 (ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R=

18 xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = xDIFF=
19 * UCLR = R x D4 = UCLR=
* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCL R represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are
beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or
discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.
Notes:
PPAP: Revision 1.9

55 of 75
Date: 12/1/17

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Appraiser C
Measurement Unit Analysis % Total Variation (TV)

Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)
EV = R x K1 Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/TV)
= 2 0.8865 =
= 3 0.5907 =
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
AV = {(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2 % AV = 100 (AV/TV)
= =
= =
Appraisers 2 3
n = parts r = trials K2 0.7087 0.5236
Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) % GRR = 100 (GRR/TV)
GRR = {(EV + AV )}
2 2 1/2
Parts K3 =
= 2 0.7087 =
= 3 0.5236
Part Variation (PV) 4 0.4464
PV = RP x K3 5 0.4032 % PV = 100 (PV/TV)
= 6 0.3745 =
= 7 0.3534 =
Total Variation (TV) 8 0.3378
TV = {(GRR + PV )}
2 2 1/2
9 0.3247 ndc = 1.41(PV/GRR)
= 10 0.3145 =
= =
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.
PPAP: Revision 1.9

56 of 75
Date: 12/1/17

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper

TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE xa=
5 R ra=
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE xb=
10 R rb=
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE xc=
15 R rc=
16. PART X=
AVERAGE Rp=
17 (ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R=

18 xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = xDIFF=
19 * UCLR = R x D4 = UCLR=
* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCL R represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are
beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or
discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.
Notes:
PPAP: Revision 1.9

57 of 75
Date: 12/1/17

PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Appraiser C
Measurement Unit Analysis % Tolerance (Tol)

Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)
EV = R x K1 Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/Tol)
= 2 0.8865 =
= 3 0.5907 =
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
AV = {(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2 % AV = 100 (AV/Tol)
= =
= =
Appraisers 2 3
n = parts r = trials K2 0.7087 0.5236
Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) % GRR = 100 (GRR/Tol)
GRR = {(EV2 + AV2)}1/2 Parts K3 =
= 2 0.7087 =
= 3 0.5236
Part Variation (PV) 4 0.4464
PV = RP x K3 5 0.4032 % PV = 100 (PV/Tol)
= 6 0.3745 =
= 7 0.3534 =
Tolerance (Tol) 8 0.3378
Tol = Upper - Lower / 6 9 0.3247 ndc = 1.41(PV/GRR)
= ( Upper - Lower ) / 6 10 0.3145 =
= =
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.
PPAP: Revision 1.9

58 of 75
Date: 12/1/17
GAGE REPEATABILITY & REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET

ANOVA METHOD
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper

TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE xa=
5 R ra=
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE xb=
10 R rb=
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE xc=
15 R rc=
16. PART X=
AVERAGE Rp=
Anova Table
Source DF SS MS F Sig
Appraiser
Parts
Appraiser-by-Part
Equipment
Total
* Significant at a = 0.05 level
Standard % Total Variation % Contribution
Anova Report Deviation (s)
Repeatability (EV)
Reproducibility (AV)
Appraiser by Part (INT)
GRR
Part-to-Part (PV)
Note:
Tolerance = Total variation (TV) =
Number of distinct data categories (ndc) =
GAGE REPEATABILITY & REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET

ANOVA METHOD
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper


GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper

TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE xa=
5 R ra=
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE xb=
10 R rb=
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE xc=
15 R rc=
16. PART X=
AVE ( Xp ) Rp=
Note: The REFERENCE VALUE can be substituted for PART AVE to generate graphs indication true bias.

Date: 12/1/17

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Average Chart -"Stacked"

Average
12
10 Appraiser A
8 Appraiser B
Appraiser C
6
Upper Spec
4 Lower Spec
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part Number
Analysis:
Range Chart -"Stacked"
12
Range
10
Appraiser A
8
Appraiser B
6 Appraiser C
Rucl
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part Number
Analysis:

Date: 12/1/17

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Average Chart -"Unstacked"

Average
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Appr A Appr B Appr C
Analysis:
Range Chart -"Unstacked"

Average
12.000
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Appr A Appr B Appr C
Analysis:

Date: 12/1/17

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Run Chart
12
10
Value
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part
Analysis:

Date: 12/1/17

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Scatter Plot
12
10
0
Part 3
Part 1
Part 2
Part 4
Part 5
Scatter Plot
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Analysis:

Date: 12/1/17

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser A
12
10
8
6
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser B
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser C
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Analysis:

Date: 12/1/17

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Error Chart
12
10
6
4
0
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Error Chart
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Part 6
Part 8
Part 9
Part 7
Part 10
Analysis:

Date: 12/1/17

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Normalized Histogram - Error

1
0.8
0.6
Appr A
0.4
0.2
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-1 - - - - - - - - -
0.8
0.6
Appr B
0.4
0.2
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-1 - - - - - - - - -

1
0.8
0.6
Appr C
0.4
0.2
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
-1 - - - - - - - - -
Analysis:

Date: 12/1/17

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
XY Plot of Averages by Size

12
10
8
Appr A
Appr B
6
Appr C
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Analysis:

Date: 12/1/17

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Comparison XY Plot
12
Appr B
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Appr A
Comparison XY Plot
12
Appr C
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Appr A

Date: 12/1/17

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
Lower Upper
Comparison XY Plot
12
Appr C
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Appr B
Analysis:

Date: 12/1/17
X BAR & R
VARIABLES CONTROL CHART
VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R ) PART NO. CHART NO.
MEASUREMENT EVALUATION PART NUMBER
PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) SPECIFICATION LIMITS
PART NAME
APPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE ZERO EQUALS
x= UCL = LCL = AVERAGES (X BAR CHART)
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
r= UCL = LCL = RANGES (R CHART)
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Date: 12/1/17
X BAR & R
PART NAME
APPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C
PART
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NUMBER
R 1
E
2
A
D
3
I
N
4
G
S 5
SUM
SUM
x
NUM
HIGH-
R
LOW
** = POINT OUT OF CONTROL

Date: 12/1/17
X BAR & R
PART NAME
Computations for the Control Chart Method of Evaluating a Measurement Process

REPLICATION ERROR: Average Subgroup Range = r = r d2
2 1.126
Number of replications = Subgroup Size = r = 3 1.693
4 2.059
Estimate Replication Standard Deviation r / d2 = se = 5 2.326
CALCULATION FOR APPRAISER EFFECT: Appraiser Averages
no d2* Number of Appraisers = nA = 0 Appraiser Average

2 1.410 A
3 1.906 Number of Samples = n = 0 B
C
Range of Appraiser Averages = RA = 0.00
Appraiser Effect = RA / d2* = sA =
CALCULATIONS FOR MEASUREMENT ERROR STANDARD DEVIATION:
sm = SQRT ( se + sA )
CALCULATIONS FOR SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO: Sample Averages
no d2* Range for these Sample Averages = Rp = 0.00 Sample Average

2 1.410 1
3 1.906 Estimate Sample to Sample Standard Deviation: 2
4 2.237 3
5 2.477 sp = Rp / d2* = 4
6 2.669 5
7 2.827 Signal to Noise Ratio: 6
8 2.961 sp / s m = 7
9 3.076 8
10 3.178 9
10
Thus the number of distinct categories that can be reliably distinguished by these measurements is:
ndc = 1.41 x sp / sm =
This is the number of non-overlapping 97% confidence intervals that will span the range of product variation. (A 97% confidence
interval centered on a single measurement would contain the actual product value that is represented by that measurement 97%
of the time.)

Date: 12/1/17
GAGE STUDY - X BAR & R

GAGE R STUDY PART NO. CHART NO.
PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) ZERO EQUALS
PART NAME
APPRAISER MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE UPPER SPECIFICATION LOWER SPECIFICATION
AVERAGES (X BAR CHART)

x= UCL = LCL =
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RANGES (R CHART)
r= UCL = LCL =
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
READING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
VALUE
HIGH-
R n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LOW
** = POINT OUT OF CONTROL
GAGE R ANALYSIS
Data in control? % Repeatability =
This method CANNOT be used for final gage acceptance without other complete and detailed MSA methods.
PPAP: Revision 1.9

75 of 75
Date: 12/1/17

F2000v1 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

F2000v1 9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

F2000v1 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oshkosh Corporation Classification: Unrestricted

Revision Date User

1.7 1/31/2015 Andrea Krueger

1.9 2/12/2018 Scott Ball

Production Part Approval Process (PPAP)

"One System…One Team...One Oshkosh”

The information in blue is interlinked to the other spreadsheets.

Part Name PART NAME

Supplier Name SUPPLIER NAME

Email Address Emailme@somewhere.com

PPAP: Revision 1.9

PPAP: Revision 1.9

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN WRITING BY OSHKOSH CORPORATION:

PPAP: Revision 1.9

PPAP SAMPLE PARTS - LABEL

PPAP SAMPLE PARTS

Supplier Inspected By:

PPAP: Revision 1.9

PPAP: Revision 1.9

Part Submission Warrant

Engineering Revision Level ERL Dated ERL DATE

ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION CUSTOMER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION

SUPPLIER NAME SUPPLIER NUMBER

CITY STATE ZIP U.S.A.

REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one)

1. Part Submission Warrant (PSW)

Organization Authorized Signature Date

Print Name Phone No. 555-555-5555 Fax No.

FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY

Print Name Customer Tracking Number (optional)

9 of 75 PPAP: Revision 1.9

10 of 75 PPAP: Revision 1.9

Sample Production Parts

Process Flow Diagram

Qualified Lab Docs

PPAP: Revision 1.9

Are the TOLERANCES properly recorded?

2.2.9 Are the dimensional results within specification?

Are all print notes addressed?

PPAP: Revision 1.9

Authorized Engineering Change Docs (F1000 / QC1000)/Customer Engineering approval

Is the F1000 approval valid for the order produced?

Is the DFMEA prepared using current AIAG guidelines?

2.2.5 Process Flow Diagram(s)

Are Recommended Actions cited for the highest RPN?

PPAP: Revision 1.9

All special product/process characteristics are included in the control plan.

Initial Process Studies

The PPAP package contains a photo of the measurement tool

Appearance Approval Report submitted?

PPAP: Revision 1.9

Do Material certification(s) show adherence to specified temperature requirements ?

PPAP: Revision 1.9

Are 3 weld features measured as required for Level 3 PPAP?

PPAP: Revision 1.9

PPAP: Revision 1.9

e needed per the GSQM Defense Addendum 13.2