With more and more Aerospace organizations outsourcing their R&O processes and ANAB's recent announcement that (FINALLY) an AS9110 accreditation scheme will be available soon, I am interested to know if anybody here at the Cove could share their thoughts/plans to adopt and/or require suppliers to attain AS/EN 9110 certification.

Any information would be appreciated.

Hi Sidney,

I don't have any thoughts regarding AS9110, and requiring suppliers to attain certification, but maybe someone else here at 'The Cove' will jump in!

Even though no one is yet accrediting AS9110, I have written to this standard for a few companies already. They are waiting for the accreditation scheme to arrive. I think more will certainly jump on board. The 9110 scheme avoids some of the difficult issues associated with 9100 manufacturing and design but it also adds features that goes beyond 9100 and is unique to maintenance which is a benefit.

Even though no one is yet accrediting AS9110, I have written to this standard for a few companies already. They are waiting for the accreditation scheme to arrive. I think more will certainly jump on board. The 9110 scheme avoids some of the difficult issues associated with 9100 manufacturing and design but it also adds features that goes beyond 9100 and is unique to maintenance which is a benefit.

Any idea as to when first AS9110 accreditations start to surface?

Thanks for adding to this thread, and welcome to 'The Cove'! :)

What I have heard is we are waiting for the arrival of the checklist similiar to the 9101b . . . also I noted yesterday an advertisement for training AS9110 auditors, perhaps it is close.

For the past two days I have been meeting with one of my clients who was being audited by BSI for AS9100 certification. We were recommended . . . for certificatin . . . :agree1: alrighty then! Anyway the discussion concerning AS9110 came up. Apparently the certification process is underway now. One of the auditors told me the checklist has been released and certification is available.

For the past two days I have been meeting with one of my clients who was being audited by BSI for AS9100 certification. We were recommended . . . for certification . . . :agree1: alrighty then! Anyway the discussion concerning AS9110 came up. Apparently the certification process is underway now. One of the auditors told me the checklist has been released and certification is available.
:applause: Congratulations! Get ready to move about the country. It's great having your participation at the AS9100 Forum. :agree1:

Are there any American Aerospace R&O Organizations jumping on board to implement and register to AS9110 yet?

I just did a search in the I.A.Q.G. OASIS database and found only a handful of organizations in Europe registered to 9110... UK, France, Morocco and Belguim.

I guess the key to implementation and registration is 'customer mandate'.

Today, I had the unsavory task of telling one of our customers (a Major O.E.M.) to go pound sand. The O.E.M. had mandated AS9110 and AS9120 registration/compliance on my company. Due to bottom line data, my top management was not compelled to accommodate the O.E.M.’s new Quality requirements.

Our parent company is a stockist with a documented quality system although there is no 2nd party certification or surveillance/oversight. On the other hand, we do have 3 unique MRO organizational divisions certificated to FAR/EASA Part 145 and ISO 9001:2000. We’ve held Part 145 certification going on thirty years but are still relatively new to ISO 9001:2000.

Even though my company is not ready, just last night I purchased (with my own $$) AS9100 standard and checklist. Later I will add the AS9110’s and AS9120’s. I can see ‘the handwriting on the wall’ and will prepare as best I can.

Today, I had the unsavory task of telling one of our customers (a Major O.E.M.) to go pound sand. The O.E.M. had mandated AS9110 and AS9120 registration/compliance on my company. Due to bottom line data, my top management was not compelled to accommodate the O.E.M.’s new Quality requirements.
Very interesting. Could you please identify the OEM mandating AS9110 certification?

And second, based on your statement, I understand that your organization did an analysis of the cost of becoming 9110 & 9120 certified, vs. the sales to the OEM in question and could not justify the investment. But, how did you quantify the costs for becoming 9110 and 9120 certified?

In the past, I have seen numerous cases of people still thinking that it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to become compliant/certified, when, in reality, the investment is, normally, much smaller....

Thanks for sharing this.http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/thumbup1.gif

Very interesting. Could you please identify the OEM mandating AS9110 certification?
I think I understand the reason for your question. AS9100 is just now spooling up here in the USA. Right?
Quality Requirements for:
QD 4.6-40 is applicable to all suppliers of aircraft products and services having entered in a Contract with Bombardier (Canada). The quality system, product and services requirements specified herein are intended to be complementary to all Bombardier Contract requirements, and to all other requirements which may need to be complied with by supplier including any Legal, regulatory or administrative requirements.
Ref.: QD 4.6-40, Issue 5 (October 2004)
And second, based on your statement, I understand that your organization did an analysis of the cost of becoming 9110 & 9120 certified, vs. the sales to the OEM in question and could not justify the investment. But, how did you quantify the costs for becoming 9110 and 9120 certified?
Cost concern was not in becoming 9110 and 9120 certified. Cost concern was in regard to increased overhead (additional personnel to float a boat this big) of ramping up and sustaining this level of certification.
In the past, I have seen numerous cases of people still thinking that it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to become compliant/certified, when, in reality, the investment is, normally, much smaller....

Thanks for sharing this.http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/thumbup1.gif
Agreed...Cost concern was not in the getting there, but rather (at this time) the cost of sustaining this level of certification was the determining factor.

Maybe this represents missed opportunity in the here and now, but in the meantime much can be improved upon within our ISO 9001:2000 QMS. I'll continue to increase my knowledge of AS 9110 and 9120 in preparation for the future. BTW, my organization based its decision on the O.E.M.'s communications to us in the form of letters and access to their QD 4.6-40.

Even though certification for 9110 is just now spinning up I have written to the standard for two companies one of which is rather large. Being a 145 repair station is a great benefit because procedures inherent within a well documented repair station really greases the wheels on implementing 9110 or 9100. While there are several additional requirements moving from 9100 to 9110 the company that opts for 9110 will often be a maintenance only organization which excludes them from design 7.3 (Which is a huge requirement in itself) I am with you guys, while many people belive this cost to be extremly high, my limited experience says different.

There are now 5 Certification Bodies accredited for AS9110 under the ANAB Accreditation program.

I think there is small market in the certification AS9110,because the customer such as Airlines have not this requirement to the MRO.And I want to know if the Boeing or Airbus have pushed AS9110 to MRO?

I have had a couple of AS9100 companies (I wrote AS9100 QMS) for migrate to the AS9110. Since they had Part 145 procedures in place and AS9100 QMS process in place it was not a great leap.

Terry

Windsal,

One of my customers had AS9100 flowed to them by AirBus. Then when
AS9110 became available they pushed them on to that. The move to AS9100 was not too difficult.

Quite! The difficulty is not not the writing of documentation. Rather, implementation, sustained conformance and continual improvement is the daily challenge. :cool:

Typically repair stations that migrate from 9100 to 9110 are already well into the sustaining their processes. You are right, it is much more difficult to do it instead of merely writing it. The quality manual should reflect the reality of their practice, not the other way around which is sometimes what happens.

The deployment of AS9110 will probably be slow. Unlike AS9100 there are other cognizant organizations that are already involved wih MRO's. These include the regulatory authorities, FAA, EASA, etc.. which are required to act by Laws and their own regulations. The Airlines Repair Station body CASE. CASE both approves repair stations and has their own standards to be followed. The quality organizations of the Airlines which the FAA imposes requirements on. And manufacturers, which for repairs have to work under several of the above bodies requirements. These various organizations will have to work togeather to eliminate duplication of effort and Standards or AS9110 will not progress.

Boeing just issued their Mandate letter for MRO suppliers.
If you handle your own product then you need to hav ethe scope added to your AS9100 scope. If you work on product that you did not produce you need to get ICOP certification.
Boeing is stating that all MRO suppliers must select their CB by Sept of 2008 and begin the transition process.

As covered in the ANAB thread AirBus is mandating this for the A350 program.

Boeing just issued their Mandate letter for MRO suppliers.
If you handle your own product then you need to hav ethe scope added to your AS9100 scope. If you work on product that you did not produce you need to get ICOP certification.
Boeing is stating that all MRO suppliers must select their CB by Sept of 2008 and begin the transition process.

As covered in the ANAB thread AirBus is mandating this for the A350 program.Thanks, Andy. That confirms my post at the AS9110 Requirement - Who requires the AS9110 standard? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=17562&highlight=9110) thread.

I went to the Boeing website where they normally post this type of letters, but it is not there yet. Any chance you can post a sanitized copy of the letter here?
:thanks:

Sidney
Here it is. As it states the requirement will be showing up in new contracts also.

Thanks again, Andy. Much appreciated.

Luckily for you, your corporate CB is 9110 accredited.;)

By the way, do you know Suzie Neal?

Thanks again, Andy. Much appreciated.

Luckily for you, your corporate CB is 9110 accredited.;)

By the way, do you know Suzie Neal?

:topic:Sidney! Do you know Suzie Neal too?

Lordy this is a small world.

Sure do.
I was part of our corprate systems rewrite. Loads of fun!
I hide out much lower much lower in the food chain. I am the guy they wish good luck to and then hand the spoon to and place in front of the fan that they back the green pasture feed cow .:lol:

Andy

Sure do.
I was part of our corprate systems rewrite. Loads of fun!
I hide out much lower much lower in the food chain. I am the guy they wish good luck to and then hand the spoon to and place in front of the fan that they back the green pasture feed cow .:lol:

Andy

Yeah, I think we may have some of your work (not me though) and I guess from the sound of it Sid's group may have some also.

Sidney
Here it is. As it states the requirement will be showing up in new contracts also.


Very appreciate for this information.It is a good news to push AS9110 certification.:agree1:

I agree that any company moving from a sound FAA or EASA type 145 approval and ISO9001:2000 would find AS9110 an easy step forward and easier to implement then first thought.
I am the QM for a small Aircraft Component Repair Shop involved with a wide variety of Aircraft component repairs & overhauls for both Defence and Civil customers. The company has been in operation for over 40 years and held various local (Australia) and FAA 145 type aircraft maintenance approvals and 200+ procedures to keep them all happy. When I first started I re-wrote and streamlined our Quality Manuals & procedures in line with ISO 9001:2000. We are currently updating them in line with AS9110 and EASA 145 requirements and I find that all the AS9110 BOLD statements are the bits we had from previous Defence, FAA or other Airworthiness requirments but just fitted in wherever we thought they fitted best within ISO9001:2000 framework. Things like the role of Airworthiness authorities, Accountable managers, Release Certifications and Inspections have been in place for many years but have a proper place now within AS9110.