Has anyone gone through an AS9100 registrar accreditation audit witnessed by ANAB? I like to get some suggestions. I am helping an international registrar obtaining AS9100 accreditation and I'll be the Lead Auditor. Is there anything I should be paying more attention, besides just conduct the audit like I have been doing. I am auditing a machne shop with no design fuctions. The company has been ISO9001 certified for a number of years. I am conducting phase 1 and phase 2 audit during the same week. I don't expect any problem during the phase 1 audit because I have reviewed their procedures, internal audits records and management review records.

Have everything the way it is supposed to be and act natural and conduct business as you usually would.

Remember, the accreditation audit is of them and not you.

Have everything the way it is supposed to be and act natural and conduct business as you usually would.


A concise description of how all audits should proceed. :agree1:

I like to get some suggestions.TY, you should ensure that you read AS9104 and AS9104-2 very carefully. Pay close attention to issues such as criteria for recommendation for certification. I am surprised that ANAB has approved a witness audit of an organization that is not design responsible. That normally limits the scope of accreditation of the CB, as well.

Good luck.

I'm surprised that ANAB would consider using an audit of a machine shop without design responsibility for an AS9100 accreditation audit. How do they plan on assessing the CB's ability to perform a proper audit if they don't see a complete one? Odd...

Just to add some comments to this thread:

I have been asked if the Company I work for would be willing to allow ANAB to witness the audit by the Registrar for AS9100 accreditation (yes we have design in our scope). I have no problems with this, if you read most contracts for services drawn up by the Certification Bodies (CB) you will notice that there is a clause in the contract (that I am looking at that) states something like this:

"Consent to having ANSI-ASQ/ANAB accreditation auditors...witnessing (name of registrar) auditor or teams"

Just some more food for thought.

Just to add some comments to this thread:

I have been asked if the Company I work for would be willing to allow ANAB to witness the audit by the Registrar for AS9100 accreditation (yes we have design in our scope). I have no problems with this, if you read most contracts for services drawn up by the Certification Bodies (CB) you will notice that there is a clause in the contract (that I am looking at that) states something like this:

"Consent to having ANSI-ASQ/ANAB accreditation auditors...witnessing (name of registrar) auditor or teams"

Just some more food for thought.Actually, under the Aerospace ICOP Scheme, the right of access is extended beyond ANAB's personnel, but also OEM oversight auditors and regulatory agency representatives.

As far as for scope of accreditation extension witnessed audits, the client has to agree with the process. After all, they are also a "guinea pig" in the process. The most interesting scenarios ensue when a CB being witnessed for scope extension purposes, denies certification to the registrant.

Yeah, I have some other thoughts regarding the OEMs ability to Audit the CBs. I really don't agree with this, because I feel it over steps the bounds of somewhat, Third Party Independence of the CBs. They are already audited by the ABs.

I voted No for the above reason.

From my end, I welcome the OEM oversight. Remember that in the aerospace sector, we do not have a disinterested third party process, but an Industry Controlled Other Party - ICOP. The OEMs represent most of the industry.

From my end, I welcome the OEM oversight. Remember that in the aerospace sector, we do not have a disinterested third party process, but an Industry Controlled Other Party - ICOP. The OEMs represent most of the industry.

I see your point. However, as far as I understand the requirement, it is mainly driven by Boeing. There are other IAQG members that I haven't heard about driving this.

I started this poll yesterday, and I hope everyone that is involved in the Aerospace Sector votes and responds to these questions. I want to get a feeling about this, from other people in the Aerospace Sector.

I know that I may have hijacked this thread from the original purpose, but I feel that this particular post (the OP) and the comments become useful.

Still comment on the original post.

However, as far as I understand the requirement, it is mainly driven by Boeing. There are other IAQG members that I haven't heard about driving this.It is not a matter of IAQG members driving it. It is part of the defined process. AS9104-2 defines the oversight activities over the AB's, CB's, AAB's and TP's. Boeing is the most participative OEM in the process, but many other OEM's support the oversight. Actually, it is a requirement for them to do so.

The list of IAQG member companies is available at http://www.iaqg.sae.org/iaqg/membership/companies.htm

The one thing that the OEM's need to improve on, concerning this aspect is the competence of the auditors they assign to perform oversight. While there is an on-going effort to improve the OEM knowledge for auditing the (CB) auditors, the body of knowledge is extensive and the idiosyncrasies of performing witnessed audits are not easy to learn.

I say Registrars should welcome OEM oversight as they all have different Supplier Quality Requirements that we must consider as part of our audits. Discussions, clarification and communication can only help the entire process. I would welcome the opportunity to be witnessed by an OEM auditor or to have time to discuss the issues we find at our client's premises.

As alluded to by Sidney, we can learn from each other and the more contact and communication the better. Even better if we were to combine audits, then both auditors get to see what the other is looking for as both will have a slightly different focus during the audit.

I have an audit planned with a regulator coming up and really looking forward to it as it I intend to learn what their main focus is during their audits. The client I am auditing has 10 different regulatory approvals as well as their AS9110 system. You can see the challenges I face auditing clause 4.2.1.f.

IMO, anyone not wanting OEM oversight is not seeing the bigger picture. The entire AS91XX system relies on registrars providing OEM's with confidence. Anthing less and the ICOP approach will go the way of the dodo bird.
:yes:

IMO, anyone not wanting OEM oversight is not seeing the bigger picture. The entire AS91XX system relies on registrars providing OEM's with confidence. Anthing less and the ICOP approach will go the way of the dodo bird.
Amen to that. Sometimes, you have to wonder what some CB representatives think. We are invited to "the game", but then some of us rebel against the rules...Extreme shortsightedness, I guess. It is that simple: the moment the regulators and the OEMs believe that the CB's can not contribute to augment confidence in the Aerospace Supply Chain, we will be out of this game. Or some will...like the restricted number of IATF approved CB's for the Automotive Sector.

Further, I believe that in the not too distant future, we will see a risk-based, performance driven oversight process of the CB's. This proposal was voted down by the AAQG a couple of years ago, but, things are changing....