Hello everyone. I want to start by saying I have been lurking in the shadows for a little bit now and I just wanted to say thank you to the people who created, maintain, and contribute to this forum. It has answered many question I have had. It is an incredible tool available.

Now on with my question. The company I work for is currently going through our AS9100 transitioning from ISO9001:2000. We currently use Mil-STD-105E for our incoming inspection sampling of parts. With AS9100 do we have to switch over to ANSI/ASQCZ1.4 or can we continue with the Mil-STD-105E?

Hello everyone. I want to start by saying I have been lurking in the shadows for a little bit now and I just wanted to say thank you to the people who created, maintain, and contribute to this forum. It has answered many question I have had. It is an incredible tool available.

Now on with my question. The company I work for is currently going through our AS9100 transitioning from ISO9001:2000. We currently use Mil-STD-105E for our incoming inspection sampling of parts. With AS9100 do we have to switch over to ANSI/ASQCZ1.4 or can we continue with the Mil-STD-105E?

You don't have to do anything... Unless the Customer Requires it.

AS9100 Rev B (8.2.4) "When the organization uses sampling inspection as a means of product acceptance, the plan shall be statistically valid and appropriate for use. The plan shall preclude the acceptance of lots whose samples have known nonconformities. When required, the plan shall be submitted for customer approval.

I'm sure you're already aware that MIL-STD-105E has been replaced by MIL-STD-1916 which references ANSI Z1.1-Z1.4.

Basically if you can show where 105e still meets the new ANSI spec, and your customers agree then you don't have to chnge a thing. Although I recommend createing a work instruction or cross reference matrix indicating the relationship between the standards and how your procedures comply with them.:read:

Rob

For aerospace remember that the big change is for FAA compliance you have to reject on 0.
For most firms in the aerospace sector you will see a requirements something along this line:
When sampling for inspection or testing is permitted and a sampling plan was not specified, does selection of statistically significant samples conform to the following: 95% confidence that 99% of parts are acceptable, (e.g., ASQC Z1.4 at AQL 1.0, BS6101 etc).

:2cents:

Thank you guys. We ended up purchasing the ANSI spec. We will now be incorporating this into our procedures.

For aerospace remember that the big change is for FAA compliance you have to reject on 0.Do you mean C=0 or reject on 1?

Reject on 1.
But it got me thinking I know that this is so and have been asked by every PI I have every delt with and so I tried to find where is is clearly stated.
So far no luck but have on of those "I know it has to be their somewhere" feelings.
I do not belive that the FAA ever talks to this directly they do state that all parts must be in conformance with type design data in order to be airworthy and so their expectation is that you never accept a lot that has a part of the sample seen as non compliant but you have to go back and screen the lot.
Maybe some one else can find the requirement before me in the regs or checklists some where.
Any FAA or EASA folks out there who might know?

Reject on 1.
But it got me thinking I know that this is so and have been asked by every PI I have every delt with and so I tried to find where is is clearly stated.
So far no luck but have on of those "I know it has to be their somewhere" feelings.
I do not belive that the FAA ever talks to this directly they do state that all parts must be in conformance with type design data in order to be airworthy and so their expectation is that you never accept a lot that has a part of the sample seen as non compliant but you have to go back and screen the lot.
Maybe some one else can find the requirement before me in the regs or checklists some where.
Any FAA or EASA folks out there who might know?Andy, I tend to agree with you. It's probably within an order like the one regarding ACSEP.

Andy, I tend to agree with you. It's probably within an order like the one regarding ACSEP.I found it in order 8100.7. I've attached the page from the order.

Thanks for finding where it came from.
I know I have "old timers disease" ( my kids remind me often since I forget)
but was not off the mark since it comes up so often in our FAA audits and audits by Primes.

Here's the link to 8100.7C order for anyone that needs it.

http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgorders.nsf/0/62657ba775a1f419862570a1006b0e25/$FILE/Order8100.7C.pdf

Best Regards,

al40

Here's the link to 8100.7C order for anyone that needs it.

http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgorders.nsf/0/62657ba775a1f419862570a1006b0e25/$FILE/Order8100.7C.pdf

Best Regards,

al40I'll attach it here.