Recently, while reading Sydney's V.'s post regarding Boeing's (link) dictates to it's Suppliers, they recommended satisfying ISO9001:2000 first. Then move on to AS9001 Rev.A.

Two questions:

Are they recommending registration for both?

Because I have never seen AS9001 Rev. A, how closely aligned is it to ISO9001:2000. Is it numbered similar to chapter and verse of the ISO standard? It appears that information is pretty scarce on this standard here. With only 13 threads, before this one, interest seems limited.

One other interesting note: No Controversial Subjects :vfunny: Can't promise that it will stay that way.;) :smokin:

Hello Energy
Yes our customers require that we be registered to both ISO9001:2000 and AS9100 Rev. A. It is almost word for word but the differences are in bold. I have been using the AS9100 Rev. A standard to generate our documents... gotta run for now. :bigwave:

Is there a chart or list that highlights the differences between AS9100 Rev. A and ISO 9001:2000? I keep hearing rumors around here that we might become interested in AS9100 and I figured I would start preparing now just in case.

AS 9100 (rev A) supersedes the original issue of AS 9100 which was released in 1999. The rev A version is dated August 2001 and contains two “Sections”. Section 1 is based on the ISO 9001:2000 structure and Section 2 is based on the ISO 9001:1994 structure. In each case, the ISO language is in regular text and the supplemental or amplified AS language is in bold text. If your company addresses all of the AS 9100a requirements you will in turn satisfy the ISO 9001:2000 requirements.

http://www.sae.org/servlets/productDetail?PROD_TYP=STD&PROD_CD=AS9101A

Oh, and each document (AS 9100 and AS 9100a) has a corresponding QSA (Quality System Assessment) document which is numbered AS 9101 and AS 9101a. :bonk: These are good documents to have since both registrars I have dealt with used these documents rather than developing their own checklists.

Our company just completed our ISO 9001:2000 and AS 9100a certification audit three weeks ago. :frust: If you have any specific questions regarding the standard or the audit, send me a PM.

Badgerman,

The use of the AS9101 checklist is mandatory, not a convenience. All Registrars performing AS9100 accredited audits must use the AS9101 document. The scoring feature is being made mandatory as well :mad:

And all the results of the AS9100 audits are supposed to be made available, by the Registrars, to a database being maintained by SAE:eek: There is no hiding from our Aerospace Big Brother:bigwave:

Your right about the "Aerospace Big Brother"

Not only can our customers review our corrective actions and responses.

I actually had a customer take all of our AS9100 assesment findings and log them into their corrective action database with my answers and closed out without ever informing me. I was reviewing some of our supplier metrics on their web page and saw several more corrective actions listed for this year than were actually issued.

Who else at the customer's facility is reviewing the database and seeing this kind of activity on my company?

maybe I should take all of the corrective actions that my suppliers respond to with other customers and document them on my system.

Unbelievable!!!:frust: :frust:

I finally received a copy of the latest AS9100 Rev A Standard. It is identical, as you have, said to ISO9001-2000, except for those specific Aircraft Suppliers stuff. Now, the loaded question. This topic has been a contentious one and I do not want to start that here. Please Private Message or e-mail me on how you may have satisfied the requirement to describe interaction of processes in the Quality Manual. Matrix? Flowchart? Text? I promise to protect the identity of the responders so that there will be no criticism leveled against your methods, or your Registrar. I happen to think it is easier to do this and satisfy a Registrar than what is being portrayed elsewhere. If I get enough ingredients, I'll mash them up and post the end result in the ISO9001-2000 Process thread for a public thrashing. Tight security controls will remain in place to protect the innocent.:thedeal:

I want to avoid the uncomfortable situation where something that is submitted is subject to, let's call it, embarrassment , from the self proclaimed "experts". It has happened before and these people no longer post. I will post the composite because my thoughts on this subject are well known and I love the battle, anyway. :vfunny: Please give me something to work with. Real, working examples of satisfying this description of process interactions. Bring it on, people!:evidence: :smokin:

My apologies. I did not, at least intentionally, lock this thread. Please use a PM if you would like to flame me, LOL!

:bonk: