In aviation sector, why to bother with any ISO, including EN9100 and similar since FAR 145 or EASA Part 145 is what is needed for a repair facility to be authorized, except to be more attractive in the market and ofcourse all good ISO things? Is there any equivelant to ISO standards for US or Canada? Thanks!

Why to bother with any ISO, including EN9100 and similar since FAR 145 or EASA Part 145 is what is needed for a repair facility to be authorized, except to be more attractive in the market and ofcourse all good ISO things? Is there any equivelant to ISO standards for US or Canada? Thanks!Welcome to The Cove. This stance has been the traditional positioning of organizations that operate in highly regulated environments, such as Aerospace, Medical, Food, etc... Regulatory compliance is obviously a major business issue, but when you operate in a competitive marketplace (and most of us, do), you have to go beyond regulatory compliance in order to prosper and thrive. All things being equal in terms of regulatory compliance, customers will migrate towards suppliers that are committed to customer satisfaction.

A robust quality management system can provide, not only for regulatory compliance, but effectiveness and efficiency gains, as well. AS/EN 9110, the current model for an Aerospace QMS maintenance, repair & overhaul model is gaining momentum worldwide.

Suggest you do a search here @ The Cove for 9110 and also peruse this article (http://www.qualitydigest.com/aug06/articles/06_article.shtml)that I wrote a couple of years ago for Quality Digest.

In aviation sector, why to bother with any ISO, including EN9100 and similar since FAR 145 or EASA Part 145 is what is needed for a repair facility to be authorized, except to be more attractive in the market and ofcourse all good ISO things? Is there any equivelant to ISO standards for US or Canada? Thanks!

Turbo, try this link. It should give you a good perspective from within the aviation community on it's benefits.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/categories/maintenance/86.html

In any case your Repair Station has a Repair Station Manual and a Quality procedures Manual already. A simple Gap analysis between Part 145 and EASA from ISO or AS9100 will tell your organization where it would have to create documented procedures and pratices to meet the ISO or AS9100/AS9110 standards.

To put it simply, you can create a Quality Managmenet System that's compliant with ISO, but if you're willing to go that far, and depending on your company's size and business outlook (global customers) why not make the small investment to become certified to ISO or AS9100?

Dear friends Sidney Vianna and Gard2372, being new in this discusion environment I am positivelly impresed with your immediate and accuret responces. Therefore I understand that during an "air crash" investigation what the board is looking is: if the maintenance facility comply with regs like FAA or EASA and not realy with ISO, since to be EASA certified you need to provide the "Organization exposistion" or Quality plan anyway!! Therefore ISO is more a marketing or "houskeeping" tool, although I agree -if missed-, it could be a .."contributing" factor for the crach. Am I right? Thanks again

Therefore ISO is more a marketing or "houskeeping" tool, although I agree -if missed-, it could be a .."contributing" factor for the crach. Am I right? ISO 9001, EN 9110 are just standards. The goal, however, when implementing standards such as these is to reach an effective and efficient quality system in place. Having a robust system would prevent or minimize the chances of an unsafe flight hardware being released from your plant and triggering a crash.

Regulatory compliance is paid attention to because it is mandated (for a number of stakeholders). Compliance to ISO 9001, EN 9110 and other standards does not take center stage because it is voluntary.

Dear Sidney,
Answer quite clear. Case closed from my part. Thank you

Turbo..

Sidney and Gard have been pretty quick and right on...AS9110 can help you meet FAR Part 145 and relevant portions of Part 43 as well.


As for a contributing factor in a crash? It's not the lack of or presence of AS9110, crashes occurred and were prevented long before AS9110, FAR 145, FAR 43, EASA 145 or anything else. I've crashed in aircraft that have met the FAR's and MIL-Q's and all that and in the end stuff still breaks and people still make mistakes.

AS, FAR, EASA and the others are nothing more than tools that can be used to manage the risks associated with aviation manufacturing, aviation maintenace and repair, and aviation support operations.

ISO 9001, EN 9110 are just standards. The goal, however, when implementing standards such as these is to reach an effective and efficient quality system in place. Having a robust system would prevent or minimize the chances of an unsafe flight hardware being released from your plant and triggering a crash.

It appears that when AS9100 is required by a Supplier by the OEM such as Boeing, for flight hardware; why does Boeing require a Supplier to achieve AS9100 registration for non-flight hardware? Isn't this kinda of contradictory to what the intent of AS9100 is, or am I way off base here?

why does Boeing require a Supplier to achieve AS9100 registration for non-flight hardware?I can't answer on behalf of Boeing. But, as I mentioned several times, in my opinion, to subject a non-flight hardware supplier to AS9100 implementation and certification is counterproductive, for both the supplier and the customer, who risk having to pay more for the product with no gains in terms of product quality.

One possible explanation might be that the procurement function of Boeing is flowing down the Boeing Quality Management System Requirements for Suppliers D6-82479 (http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/supplier/D6-82479.pdf) document to everybody.

I can't answer on behalf of Boeing. But, as I mentioned several times, in my opinion, to subject a non-flight hardware supplier to AS9100 implementation and certification is counterproductive, for both the supplier and the customer, who risk having to pay more for the product with no gains in terms of product quality.

One possible explanation might be that the procurement function of Boeing is flowing down the Boeing Quality Management System Requirements for Suppliers D6-82479 (http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/supplier/D6-82479.pdf) document to everybody.

Boeing is not selectively requiring the AS9100 to their suppliers (and the Supplier has a deadline of June 30, 2008), you are right, it is flown down by the Procurement Group.

This seems be a typical response when some companies (major OEMs') that don't communicate or agree on what is best for the Company or their Supplier Base. Separate divisions have separate rules.

However, it you want to do business with the Major OEM then do what we require, is the attitude, in my opinion. What a shame.

I agree Sid...I had something along the same line this week concerning AS9110 where AS9120 or just ISO 9001 would be more appropriate. I'm sorry I can't go much more into it, but referencing your fine article on AS9110 (I passed it along) and all that I think the AS stuff is an overkill for the potential gain in this case.

It appears that when AS9100 is required by a Supplier by the OEM such as Boeing, for flight hardware; why does Boeing require a Supplier to achieve AS9100 registration for non-flight hardware? Isn't this kinda of contradictory to what the intent of AS9100 is, or am I way off base here?

For the same reason many companies require organizations to become registered to ISO 9001. Boeing and other OEMs are using the standard to assure that there suppliers (hardware, software or service) have a management system for quality that will supply products and services to their requirements.

Yes I do know that AS9100 leans quite heavily to the hardware side of the business but it is also management system that can be used for organizations providing services to the OEMs.

For the same reason many companies require organizations to become registered to ISO 9001. Boeing and other OEMs are using the standard to assure that there suppliers (hardware, software or service) have a management system for quality that will supply products and services to their requirements.

Yes I do know that AS9100 leans quite heavily to the hardware side of the business but it is also management system that can be used for organizations providing services to the OEMs.

I am not arguing the fact that there shouldn't be control to a certain extent. What I am saying (through Personal contact) I get a call or email from one of OEM's HQ in St Louis and they are wondering why we are seeking AS9100 registration, because it applies to "flight-hardware" not "support products." They only want ISO9001 Registration. Yes I know if you receive Registration status to AS9100, you also receive registration status to ISO9001. However, it is a Directive from the OEM (HQ Seattle) that the Suppliers achieve registration to AS9100 by June 30, 2008, no matter what type of product (flight or non-flight) it is.

I fully understand, and have been in both actual flight hardware and non-flight businesses and I sure would like the tighter controls for Flight Hardware.

That is why I said:

This seems be a typical response when some companies (major OEMs') that don't communicate or agree on what is best for the Company or their Supplier Base. Separate divisions have separate rules.

However, it you want to do business with the Major OEM then do what we require, is the attitude, in my opinion. What a shame.

With my experiance in mil and in civil maintenance and flight operations, I couldn't agree more also with Randy, although my intention was to be clearly identified what has been mentioned: "Regulations FAA/EASA.." mandatory, ISO's ..usuful tools (for time being)!. The reason for the issue was an argument with some procurement department in a solicitation process for a aviation repair facility, like: should we reject a contractor simply because he doesn't have ISO, although he is FAA certified? To me it is obvious, No! if other parameters remains the same.

Thanks again

I'll go along with the "NO" Turbo...(I made a rhyme:lol:). If the contractor is FAA certified under 145 or whatever then the legal requirements have been met as well as having a quality system of sorts, records management, personnel management and so forth.