Attached is a draft of the new AS9101 that is now out for comment. It is very different so I look forward to a lively discussion about its merits on this thread. The main changes are summarised below. Perhaps one of the moderators can summarise the comments or forward the thread as our consolidated contribution to its review.

Main Changes:


No scoring.
For the first certification an initial on site audit is requested in 2 stages :
[1.]Check ‘on site’ of the QMS documentation and determination of the scope, request of customers feedback/complaints, focus on availability of performance information and continual improvement,
[2.]Full on site audit.
For all the audits the CBs must review and take into account the customers feedback (through OASIS) and customer satisfaction.
New checklist contains specific aerospace situations (documents, records, procedures, etc) to look for during on-site audits.
Improved link with Product quality, On Time Delivery and processes:
[1.]Using actual product example during system audit
[2.]Use product quality and OTD performance measurement to focus audit on under performing processes


Happy reading! :yes:

Thanks for the draft AS9101. I briefly scanned the document and belive that the changes will be embraced by most auditors and customers.

The current checklist is very labor intensive. I usually spend about 2 hours off site preparing the checklist with some of the information is not so important.

The proposed AS9101 hoefully will provide more value-added feedback to the customer.


Danny

Thank you! Today I have got a AS9100 C's Draft version.

Yesterday the AS9101 Rev D ballot draft was distributed for review. I'll try to post a summary as time permits.

Personally I liked the older version, at least from a checklist perspective. For me it really helped me drill down to pertinent issues.

Personally I liked the older version, at least from a checklist perspective. For me it really helped me drill down to pertinent issues.Most AEA's that I know despise the current 9101 document, because it is a hindrance to true process based audits. And that is the main reason for the checklist to be abolished.

The goal is for auditors to delve into the actual organization's processes, not a checklist.

With AS9101 in it's current form I end up auditing with a process sheet, then I have to go back and fill in the checklist later. For me it's a complete waste of time.

I'm with Sidney, I like it. I was doing process audits for ages anyway, so it suits me. I'd do my processa audits then have to go back to the checklist and fill it out from my notes. Did that over lunch mostly. It was a good tool to make sure I covered everything....but I hate the scoring
:2cents:

I have a question to ask sidney, my company has not Aero customer now, can we certify AS9100?

The latest draft of 9101 Rev.D has been posted for comments (not balloting) in the private part of the AAQG website. I anticipate many comments will be offered to the draft of the requirement. While the new 9101 will change the audit game, mandating auditors to evaluate and report on processes and system effectiveness, a new host of appendices were developed to support the conformance aspect of the audit.

The new 9101 (as is) will require significant better planning and post audit reporting time. To the best of my knowledge, the pilot exercise(s) did not use all of the forms the auditors will be required to complete.

hi,sidney:
is MSA and SPC required by AS9100? and is control plan required and its format must be in accordance with AS9103?
can i implement clause 7.1 according to APQP and clause 7.5.1.1 according to PPAP?

more thanks for your help!

hi,sidney:
is MSA and SPC required by AS9100? and is control plan required and its format must be in accordance with AS9103?
can i implement clause 7.1 according to APQP and clause 7.5.1.1 according to PPAP?

more thanks for your help!

While you certainly can use the automotive core tools along with AS9100, there is no requirement to use them. PPAP would meet the requirements of 7.5.1.1 in AS9100 Rev C, unless your customer requires a First Article per AS9102.

has anyone seen the latest 9101 that was up for comment? how much did it change?

The 9101 re-write team is meeting in Seattle this week to reconcile the many comments received on the last draft.

Major change was the inclusion of annother apendix, the OER - Objective Evidence Record list.

Hi all, I just heard through the grapevine that AS9101 Rev D will be published January 2010. This was in conjunction with the IAQG putting out a request to major training providers to quote on the training. Can anybody verify this, or is it just a rumor?
Thanks and Cheers
Dez

Just a rumor. We have a representative that is in the 9101 rewrite team. I don't believe anyone knows for sure when the 9101D document will be released. The next IAQG meeting in Germany will sure be lively :tg:.

In the Americas Sector, the document has not been formally ballotted yet, but hundreds of comments were offered back in May, including a number of show stoppers. Supposedly, most of them have been dispositioned.

The issue is as political as technical. Tough nut to crack

:thanks:Thanks Sidney. I suspected so. Yes, it is going to be a lively one. I will be at the Minneapolis get-toegether tomorrow. Maybe more rumors will be flying. Who will eventuall be the training provider, is going to be a excellent topic for rumor generation:notme:

Once again, thanks and cheers Dez

Maybe more rumors will be flying. Who will eventuall be the training provider, is going to be a excellent topic for rumor generationThere is a lot of confusion about this "training provider". The IAQG will contract with a SINGLE PROVIDER to develop the sanctioned auditor training package. The actual training will be available to be taught, by the CB's ourselves, according to the OPMT leader. I asked that question during the last AAQG meeting in Portland, OR, back in April.

Interesting, because the impression was that it would be a single source provider. Both content and delivery. Your comment is line with what I got through the email that indicated that AS9101 rev D would be out in January. In fact the direct quote reads "In conjunction with the recent publication of 9100/9110/9120:2009, the 9101 Quality System Assessment Standard will be revised. Anticipated publication date of the updated 9101 standard is January 2010. With the updates to these standards it is clear that aerospace auditors will need to receive training to facilitate the implementation of these standards updates. The IAQG OPMT determined that an IAQG sanctioned training package would reduce the variation in training materials available to auditors. This is a request for proposals for the development of an IAQG sanctioned training package". Well, I am sure that more is yet to come. Thanks for the info. :cool:

Thanks and cheers Dez

Hi,

As it is mentioned that it will be a single source to carry out the transition training,how long the training provider will take to complete the training?There would be around 800 auditors who will need to undergo training (OASIS shows 948 but many are repeated due to multiple approvals from two auditor authentication bodies) and the course will be of two days.So the training provider may have to plan for six months continuous training.;)


Hope, IAQG would consider about monopoly factor also and decide about the course fees.Otherwise,the training provider will get chance to mint money.Advance congratulation to the training provider,to be selected for this job.:biglaugh:

Can someone suggest to IAQG to select atleast five training providers after evaluating the competency?May be three for US,one each for Asia and Europe.Just a thought.

As it is mentioned that it will be a single source to carry out the transition training,how long the training provider will take to complete the training?Did you read my post? Your assertion is incorrect. CB's will train their own auditors.

At least that is what I was told by the OPMT lead, back in April.

Thanks Sidney.It is a good news.

My understanding-not before January 2010.Is this correct?

The latest DRAFT of 9101 is dated 17 August 2009. It is 73 pages long and contains the "controversial" Objective Evidence Record appendix, which will require the recording of objective evidence for each clause and sub-clause of the applicable assessed standard, i.e., 9100, 9110 or 9120.

Sydney,
Will it be possible to post the draft in the Forum?
As you mentioned that requirement of recording objective evidences for each clause is a requirement in the draft,is it not taking backward step to present AS9101C after making so much effort on process approach audits.

I wonder that whether it will be possible to meet all requirements with present on-site audit man day calculation.

Finally,it may prove again that "old is gold":tg:

Will it be possible to post the draft in the Forum?Nope. Not me.

During the AAQG meeting this week, in Charlotte, NC, the AAQG decided to move forward with the formal ballot of 9101D. Under the SAE rules, the ballot period lasts for 4 weeks. If the voting passes, we could have the new 9101 document released in all 3 sectors by November 2009.

It is possible that the IAQG makes a decision about starting the clock for the transition to 9100C, 9110A and 9120A, during the upcoming IAQG meeting in Germany.

Objective Evidence should have been a requirement from Day ONE.....why do they have to make things so complicated????......Say what you do / Do what you say / and Document it......but instead, they keep adding tons and tons of additional requirements to make things complicated.

:mg::mg:
:cool::cool:

Objective Evidence should have been a requirement from Day ONE.....why do they have to make things so complicated????......:mg::mg:
:cool::cool:


Maybe because of engineers and quality professionals making it more complicated than it really needs to be;)

Objective Evidence should have been a requirement from Day ONE.....why do they have to make things so complicated????......Say what you do / Do what you say / and Document it......but instead, they keep adding tons and tons of additional requirements to make things complicated.I am not sure if you have any insight onto the 9101 rewrite effort, but I can tell you that a TREMENDOUS amount of work has been invested into this document revision. There are some fundamental differences of opinion on certain key issues. For example, we are moving away from the current 9101/9111/9121 approach because the checklist-format document is not conducive to a process-approach based audit. Having an OER appendix, brings something like a checklist back into the process. The basic concern is that if auditors will spend enough time doing actual auditing, versus recording objective evidence. There is no question about the importance of observing objective evidence, but that should not be the main focus of any audit, which still is to assess the effectiveness of the process and systems being presented. One thing is for auditors to capture objective evidence data in notepads, informal checklists. It is another issue when this has to be collected and presented in a formal way. Personally, I am also concerned with the possibility of good aerospace lead auditors, frustrated with the amount of additional bureaucracy, uncompensated work, to leave the scheme. It has happened, to an extent, in the automotive world. And we need to keep all the good talent we have in the aerospace ICO scheme.

Maybe because of engineers and quality professionals making it more complicated than it really needs to be;)Maybe you can share with us a sanitized audit report package of yours with all the objective evidence duly noted.

As lot of effort is given to prepare this document,sure it will meet it's objectives.Initially there is some resistance to change, specially from those who are using the check list for quite long.Once we start using this, we may find that it is better than the old.
So next news would be from Munich.
Sydney,please keep updating your friends in the forum.

Any news about approved auditor training?

Any news about approved auditor training?The IAQG received 14 bids from training providers, interested in developing the sanctioned training package. The proposals are being reviewed at this time.

Myself, I like the Turtle diagrams (Inputs/Outputs) style of Auditing rather than using the Checklists....I may use a checklist during a Document Audit (system audit) but checklists are really useless in Process Audits.

I'm with you, I like the turtle alot more than I thought I would.

During the AAQG meeting this week, in Charlotte, NC, the AAQG decided to move forward with the formal ballot of 9101D. Under the SAE rules, the ballot period lasts for 4 weeks. If the voting passes, we could have the new 9101 document released in all 3 sectors by November 2009.

It is possible that the IAQG makes a decision about starting the clock for the transition to 9100C, 9110A and 9120A, during the upcoming IAQG meeting in Germany.

Hello Sydney,
Is there any news on AAQG's ballot process for AS9101D and starting the clock?

Yes, Joy. The 9101D ballot process has been completed in the Americas Sector, but I am not at liberty of disclosing the results. I will not speculate on the transition timeline of the 91XX:2009 standards.
I think we'll have to wait a formal announcement from the IAQG.

Thanks.At times, something is better than nothing and something has happened in some direction.



We will be waiting for your next post on the subject.

This document (http://www.sae.org/aaqg/press/icop0911.pdf) published by the IAQG OPMT Chair has a finalized timeline for transition to AS9100 rev C. After April 30, 2010 certification will be available. First the CB must be accredited and the auditors involved re-authenticated.