Hello all,

I own and operate a service organization (service as in we do not manufacture anything) that is focused mainly on the automotive sector.
I was recently approached by one of our large customers about possibly branching off into aerospace. It was a very informal conversation, but the opportunity is very real for me. He mentioned that I would need to "upgrade [my ISO 9001:2000] quality system to an aerospace standard".

My question to you, the community, is:

1. Which standard, specifically, am I going to be looking at? Our company is a quality control (sorting) company specializing in fasteners (at least that is the sector that will be carried over to aerospace).
I deal with 3 large automotive suppliers who all have aerospace fastener divisions and the opportunity for me is a great one that I do not want to pass up.
2. My current system has the permissible exclusion from the design section of the ISO 9001:2000 standard since all criteria for defective material are established by our customers. Is this design exclusion something that will carry over to ASXXXX ?
3. Once I decide which standard I would like to adhere to, where do I purchase the thing?
4. Assuming everything goes as planned, do I discard my ISO 9001:2000 status? Do I need to be audited against both standards? How does it all tie in together?
5. On average, can anyone estimate how long (just an opinion, obviously) will it take me to go from "okay lets do this" to "hey, we passed our certification audit?"

Thanks in advance to anyone who responds.

(Oh, and no need to welcome me to the forum as I have been lurking for a while and have posted under a different name which I did not want to use since it bordered on violation of the forum rules.)

The 3 main aerospace standards are AS9100, AS9110, and AS9120.
AS9100 Quality Management Systems - Aerospace - Requirements
AS9110 Quality Maintenance Systems - Aerospace - Requirements for Maintenance Organizations
AS9120 Quality Management Systems - Aerospace - Requirements for Stockist Distributors

Of the 3, the only one that I could see applying to your organization (assuming the product you are sorting is new) is AS9100.

Note: AS9003 (Inspection and Test Quality System) is an AAQG aerospace standard that seems like it would apply, but it is based on the old ISO 9001:1994 standard and is not being maintained. To my knowledge, there is no accredited certification to this standard anyway.

1. Which standard, specifically, am I going to be looking at? Our company is a quality control (sorting) company specializing in fasteners (at least that is the sector that will be carried over to aerospace).Based on what you describe, I would STRONGLY advise you to convince your customer that you should stay with ISO 9001. I just covered this in a webinar I delivered today. AS9100 was developed to address the needs of a typical aerospace flight hardware supplier. If you don't fall in that category, all the "interpretations" and exclusions you will be required to do will lead inevitably to artificial and cumbersome processes. At the end of the implementation, you would end up with an ISO 9001 compliant system and all the additional costs and admin burden associated with the AS9100 ICOP Scheme to deal with. Note: AS9003 (Inspection and Test Quality System) is an AAQG aerospace standard that seems like it would apply, but it is based on the old ISO 9001:1994 standard and is not being maintained. To my knowledge, there is no accredited certification to this standard anyway.There is an ANAB accreditation process to AS9003, which is based on the old ISO 9003:1994. Last year, NASA and Lockheed have started a process to revise AS9003, to adequate it to the ISO 9001:2000 model. Both organizations flow down AS9003 to some of their suppliers. I don't know the current status of the AS9003 revision process.

Based on what you describe, I would STRONGLY advise you to convince your customer that you should stay with ISO 9001.
I agree with Sidney on this. For what you do, many of the additional aerospace requirements just don't make sense.


Last year, NASA and Lockheed has started a process to revise AS9003, to adequate it to the ISO 9001:2000 model. both organizations flow down AS9003 to some of their suppliers. I don't know the current status of the AS9003 revision process.
Who is coordinating the revision? The AAQG list dated March 2008 shows that it's not being maintained.

I tend to agree with Sidney here. At my last job, since we did almost exclusively aerospace work, we developed an AS9100 system. However, many of our customers' requirements had an out for this if only a small-ish percentage of your work is aerospace related. In these cases, ISO9001 was considered acceptable per their supplier quality requirements.

That said though:

1) Probably AS9100 is most applicable.
2) Probably. As far as I know, most build-to-print manufacturers take exclusion from the Design section (Section 7.3).
3) You can buy it here: http://www.sae.org/technical/standards/AS9100B
4) You will have both. AS9100 comprises the text of ISO9001 with added aerospace requirements. If you are certified to AS9100, you are automatically certified to ISO9001 as well.
5) That one I can't answer. So many variables.

AS9100 was developed to address the needs of a typical aerospace flight hardware supplier. If you don't fall in that category, all the "interpretations" and exclusions you will be required to do will lead inevitably to artificial and cumbersome processes.


So if I understand what you are saying, that AS9100 was basically created to address Flight Hardware Suppliers? (I guess you would know what my next question would be, if this was what it was created for).

(Not the question that will be asked as stated above) Please clarify this point?

I have heard other comments, like: It is for Aerospace Suppliers. It really doesn't matter if it is Flight Hardware of Ground Support Equipment.

Who is coordinating the revision? NASA and Lockheed Martin. AS9003 became a hot potato. AS9003 is basically the appendix B of the old Boeing D6-82479 document which was phased out according to D6-82479 Boeing Quality Management System (BQMS) Appendix B (AS9003) Approval Phase-Out and Requirement for Industry Controlled Other Party AS/EN/JISQ 9100 certification (http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/2ndappendixbleter.pdf)So if I understand what you are saying, that AS9100 was basically created to address Flight Hardware Suppliers? Yes, I have already expressed that several times in the past. I have heard other comments, like: It is for Aerospace Suppliers. It really doesn't matter if it is Flight Hardware of Ground Support Equipment.That is the beauty of a free, democratic society: people can express their views without fear of censorship. Everybody has opinions. If you believe that it makes sense for a ground support equipment to undergo FAI (as an example), that is great.
The reason why AS9100 is being flown down to suppliers not involved with flight hardware is simply the fact that it requires effort, planning, knowledge by the customer's procurement groups to carefully go over their approved supplier list and require an APPROPRIATE QMS for the type of product/service being procured.

It is much easier (from their perspective) to make a broad-brush sweeping requirement that everyone should be AS9100 certified. In the long term, it adds unnecessary costs without increasing levels of product quality or integrity. But that is just my opinion.

Hi

I separate standard for Aerospace engineering services will sort out all the above issues. It’s really tough to exclude some clause and interpret Product with services
Any also difficult to address the following clause for services Organization:
First Article Inspection, Control of NC, Validation of process for Production, Preservation of product. Which all more related to manufacturing.

Knowing what I know now, my first action would be to see if you needed to be NADCAP registered. If so, it may not be feasible, economicaly, for you.
The audits costs more than an ISO audit and the requirements, for small businesses, can be too costly.
All the customers we currently have recognize NADCAP / AC7004 registered quality system without having the AS9001, etc.

Knowing what I know now, my first action would be to see if you needed to be NADCAP registered. If so, it may not be feasible, economicaly, for you.
The audits costs more than an ISO audit and the requirements, for small businesses, can be too costly.
All the customers we currently have recognize NADCAP / AC7004 registered quality system without having the AS9001, etc.

I just want to add some information.

The Major OEM's are flowing down the AS9100 requirement to all or most of their suppliers, without considering the possibility, that this requirement wouldn't apply to certain suppliers as Sidney has stated here:

That is the beauty of a free, democratic society: people can express their views without fear of censorship. Everybody has opinions. If you believe that it makes sense for a ground support equipment to undergo FAI (as an example), that is great.

The reason why AS9100 is being flown down to suppliers not involved with flight hardware is simply the fact that it requires effort, planning, knowledge by the customer's procurement groups to carefully go over their approved supplier list and require an APPROPRIATE QMS for the type of product/service being procured.

It is much easier (from their perspective) to make a broad-brush sweeping requirement that everyone should be AS9100 certified. In the long term, it adds unnecessary costs without increasing levels of product quality or integrity. But that is just my opinion.

As far as NADCAP is concerned, in my opinion, has their own issues.