The IAQG has distributed the attached document. I post the text herein,

The International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) has released, as of October 2007, three quality management system standards. The following guidance describes the intended application of these standards:

9100 – Quality Management Systems – Aerospace – Requirements
This standard is intended for use by organizations that design, develop, and/or produce aviation, space and defense products; and by organizations providing post-delivery support, including the provision of maintenance, spare parts, or materials, for their own products.

9110 – Quality Management Systems – Aerospace – Requirements for Maintenance Organizations
This standard is intended for use by organizations whose primary business is providing maintenance, repair, and overhaul services for aviation sector products. It is tailored for organizations with national airworthiness authority (NAA) repair station certification, but is also suitable for non-certificated organizations including those that provide maintenance, repair, and overhaul services for military aviation products.
The standard is also intended to be used by organizations with maintenance, repair, and overhaul operations that operate autonomously, or that are substantially different from their manufacturing operations.

9120 – Quality Management Systems – Aerospace – Requirements for Stockist Distributors
This standard is intended for use by organizations that procure parts, materials and assemblies and sells these products to a customer in the aviation, space and defense industries. This includes organizations that procure products and split them into smaller quantities. This standard is not intended for organizations that rework or repair products. Organizations that perform work that affect or could affect product characteristics or conformity should use AS/EN/JIS Q 9100 or another general quality management system standard.


Issued by the IAQG Requirements Strategy Stream


October 2007

Thank you, Sidney - a very interesting article.

9100 is more and more a common requirement, also in Germany, and I also have heard from parts distributors that they had to obtain the 9120 certification.

However, up to now, I do not know any German company that is 9110 certified (though of course, I do not know all of them!) or that any of their customers had required them to do so.

How is it in your countries?

It would be great if you would share your experience with me.

Thanks a lot, Angelika:thanx:

Thank you, Sidney - a very interesting article.

9100 is more and more a common requirement, also in Germany, and I also have heard from parts distributors that they had to obtain the 9120 certification.

However, up to now, I do not know any German company that is 9110 certified (though of course, I do not know all of them!) or that any of their customers had required them to do so.

How is it in your countries?

It would be great if you would share your experience with me.

Thanks a lot, Angelika:thanx:

Hello Angelika,

Here (http://www.qualitydigest.com/aug06/articles/06_article.shtml) is an (August 2006) article from "Quality Digest" written by our Fellow Cover Sidney Vianna. It may provide you with some perspective. Maybe Sidney can provide an update.

At least you have a start (on a Sunday). :D

Stijloor.

Angelika,

In addition to my previous response to your post, I found this page (http://www.crucial-knowledge.info/AS9110.htm) while "Googling." At the bottom of this page there are a few links to other aerospace-related organizations. Some may require registration.

Hope this helps.

Stijloor.

However, up to now, I do not know any German company that is 9110 certified (though of course, I do not know all of them!) or that any of their customers had required them to do so.The OASIS database provides for the information. I just ran a search for 9110 certified organizations in Germany and the results are attached.

Hi All, and a Happy New Year!

The following comments are purely for discussion as I am interested in the forum member's views on the issue.

Personally, I'm a bit disappointed the guidance continues to support the use of the AS9100 standard for organisations involved in maintenance only. There are still many 145 Repair Stations with AS9100 Registration where the most appropriate standard is AS9110. I think this in part caused by US Head Offices gaining AS9100 Registration and linking their satellite sites internationally to the one certificate. In the Asia Pacific Region, we have a number of 145 Repair Stations registered to AS9100 through the Head Office Multi-location Certificate and it is very difficult to audit as the regional offices are only involved in maintenance, not manufacture.

I would have liked to see the IAQG take a harder line on the applicability of AS9100 more akin to how QS9000 and TS 16949 were and are applied. This would ensure that purely repair organisations use the correct standard (AS9110) for their registration and are not forced to customise their systems to AS9100 for little or no benefit.

I look forward to your comments.

Cheers

I would have liked to see the IAQG take a harder line on the applicability of AS9100 more akin to how QS9000 and TS 16949 were and are applied. This would ensure that purely repair organisations use the correct standard (AS9110) for their registration and are not forced to customise their systems to AS9100 for little or no benefit.

I look forward to your comments.

CheersIt seems to me that the IAQG will have to learn (the hard way) what the Automotive OEM's learned during the failed QS-9000 attempt. My position concerning this issue was expressed in this post (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=213590&postcount=2).

The requirements of civil avaiation authorities are more important for MROs and once they meet those,they are comfortable.Normally there is no pressure from customers (scheduled and unscheduled operators) to go for AS9110 certification.For military users the awareness is not yet developed in all countries.So unless there is pressure from organisations like FAA or customers,certification in AS9110 may not increase.Even civil aviation authorities in many countries believe this certification as intrusion in their territory.

Replacing the word "should" with "shall" in application of AS9100 could help to change the situation (Probably).