We are prepping for our AS registration audit and we are struggling with an issue concerning audit cycles. We call in our ISO system that our QMS will be fully audited at a minimum of twice yearly, and we have met this. While prepping for our AS audit we are also keeping the ISO ball in the air. So our internal audit schedule was set to ISO. We did keep the twice a year requirement in the AS procedure, being we have not went through a complete year buy our AS audit I would not expect this to be a problem. Othere audits or assesments to AS9100 we have had in this year time frame are;
a) A GAP analysis - Findings detailed but not in CA form
b) We had one internal audit of the entire QMS to AS9100, CA's written.
c) One ISO audit of the entire QMS CA's written
d) An audit to AS9100 by a consultant. No formal CA's written.
e) Stage 1 and doc. review by our regristrar. CA's written.

Looking for opinions as to whether or not we may have a major issue just on the frequency or issua as to whether or not we have went through and entire audit cycle to AS9100?:mg:

We are prepping for our AS registration audit and we are struggling with an issue concerning audit cycles. We call in our ISO system that our QMS will be fully audited at a minimum of twice yearly, and we have met this. While prepping for our AS audit we are also keeping the ISO ball in the air. So our internal audit schedule was set to ISO. We did keep the twice a year requirement in the AS procedure, being we have not went through a complete year buy our AS audit I would not expect this to be a problem. Othere audits or assesments to AS9100 we have had in this year time frame are;
a) A GAP analysis - Findings detailed but not in CA form
b) We had one internal audit of the entire QMS to AS9100, CA's written.
c) One ISO audit of the entire QMS CA's written
d) An audit to AS9100 by a consultant. No formal CA's written.
e) Stage 1 and doc. review by our regristrar. CA's written.

Looking for opinions as to whether or not we may have a major issue just on the frequency or issua as to whether or not we have went through and entire audit cycle to AS9100?:mg:

I don't think there will be an issue with your frequencies in my opinion. I would make sure that before your Assessment you cover the added requirement to AS9100.

One thing to consider: If there are findings by the Registrar during the Stage 2 assessment (initially) your registration will be held in limbo until the CA are closed out, by the Registrar. It maybe required to have a "special" on-site visit to close out the CA's.

We are prepping for our AS registration audit and we are struggling with an issue concerning audit cycles. We call in our ISO system that our QMS will be fully audited at a minimum of twice yearly, and we have met this. While prepping for our AS audit we are also keeping the ISO ball in the air. So our internal audit schedule was set to ISO. We did keep the twice a year requirement in the AS procedure, being we have not went through a complete year buy our AS audit I would not expect this to be a problem. Othere audits or assesments to AS9100 we have had in this year time frame are;
a) A GAP analysis - Findings detailed but not in CA form
b) We had one internal audit of the entire QMS to AS9100, CA's written.
c) One ISO audit of the entire QMS CA's written
d) An audit to AS9100 by a consultant. No formal CA's written.
e) Stage 1 and doc. review by our regristrar. CA's written.

Looking for opinions as to whether or not we may have a major issue just on the frequency or issua as to whether or not we have went through and entire audit cycle to AS9100?:mg:

I cannot fathom why you didn't get an NC from previous CB audits:rolleyes:

How do you comply with the requirement to "establish an audit program....based on status and importance......." if you only audit twice a year? I for one would be very interested to know how you addressed that, or if you were even asked about it, Bob! Take a look at ISO 9004 for guidance or read this http://www.nqa-usa.com/articles/articles_detail.php?id=48

I don't get your response, we feel the entire QMS is important. That's why it is audited in its entirity are bi-annually. Our Daily, weekly,monthly activities with in the QMS monitor and report on those activities identified in our quality objectives. We also have our registrars audits ever 6 months so we are having our QMS audited 4 times a year at least for the first two years of registration to AS9100.

What type of additional info could I provide you to get your further input on the comments. I am interested in your view

Thank you

I don't get your response, we feel the entire QMS is important. That's why it is audited in its entirity are bi-annually. Our Daily, weekly,monthly activities with in the QMS monitor and report on those activities identified in our quality objectives. We also have our registrars audits ever 6 months so we are having our QMS audited 4 times a year at least for the first two years of registration to AS9100.

What type of additional info could I provide you to get your further input on the comments. I am interested in your view

Thank you

Well, Bob, your CB audits don't count as far as your own internal audit program is concerned, of course.

Basically, by auditing the whole QMS every six months you are treating all processes as equal (or very close). I'd venture to suggest that they aren't, even by your own managements' reckoning. During any period in business, some 'parts' of the system need to come under closer scrutiny than others. This is often indicated by the items in my article - risk and impact.....

Your approach is emulating the CB so they often see nothing wrong with that, but it's often not much use to your management to assure them that when risk is encountered, the qms is used to control the situation.

Did you read my article in the link? Was it not clear to you?