I am an auditor/consultant of aerospace quality management systems and seeking an interpretation in the application of AS9100 to organizations that manufacture both aerospace and non-aerospace products.

When an organization is seeking to register to the AS9100 International Standard is it permissible to only register a portion of their manufacturing operations (those operations that supply to the aerospace industry) to AS9100, and subsequently register the non-aerospace manufacturing operations to ISO 9001:2000?

I recently audited (their first internal audit prior to the registration audit) an organization to the AS9100 International Standard. This organization is a precision machine shop and manufactures not only aerospace components, but also manufactures other machine products for industry. The intent of this organization is to register only the aerospace-specific manufacturing processes to AS 9100, but at the same time only meet the ISO 9001:2000 requirements for the balance of their operations.

The quality manual for this organization did not specifically state/identify which processes were aerospace processes, nor which processes were non-aerospace processes. My interpretation of element 1.1 General "this standard includes ISO 9001:2000 quality management system requirements and specifies additional requirements for an organization for the aerospace industry" is that there are additional requirements for an organization seeking registration to AS9100. Section 4.1(a) states the processes and their application shall be identified throughout the organization... and 4.1 additionally states "these processes shall be managed in accordance with the requirements of this International Standard".

If an organization is seeking to register their quality management system to a quality management system standard, can they selectively determine which processes are applicable to differing standards? If so, must the organization register to both standards?

I have not found any sanctioned interpretations of the AS9100 standard or application. If you would kindly direct me to the proper channel, it would be much appreciated.

Welcome PhD -

I don't know the answer, but I'm very interested in the responses soon to come. This describes us exactly. We manufacture and repair machine details. Some are military, some aerospace, some automotive, some machine tool industry, some food applications (like giant augers for churning), some medical (for example we make a tiny ballscrew for fine tuning an X-ray machine); we even make reverser screws for fishing reels. We also have steering gears in NASCAR cars. A good part of our work is the company down the street who found us on-line or in the phone book because a machine crashed. I could go on and on.

We intend to include registration to AS9100 in our plans for 2004.

I have posed this very same question to the SAE but have yet to receive a response.

My thoughts are this... if a company is registered to several standards ISO/QS/AS/TS I would look for the identification of processes to show exactly which processes conform the each specific standard and then audit from there. However, I find that the requirements for some of the AS-specific elements of purchasing, for example, cannot include only the ISO requirements for an organization that is also AS9100.
'
It seems that TS2 makes the clarification issue very clear - but I cannot "infer" (assume) the same interpretation to AS9100 since the AIG is not the SAE... ergo, my dilemma.

Welcome PhD,

We have a dual certificate: ISO 9001:2000 and SAE AS9100 A. The Scope: Design and manufacture of aerospace and industrial electronic controls.

...have been assesed by ________ and found to comply with ANSI/ISO/ASQC Q9001:2000 and SAE AS9100A.

It seems to me it would make alot more work for the company to try to keep certain products separate from one standard to the other. It would be simpler to make statements such as: in the case of commercial product we handle it this way and in the case of products built for the Aerospace Industry...ect. JMO.

Very interesting Question, now I am very curious to see more posts on this subject! :)

Paula
p.s. Cari, NASCAR RULES!!!!! :bigwave:

...It would be simpler to make statements such as: in the case of commercial product we handle it this way and in the case of products built for the Aerospace Industry...ect.

...p.s. Cari, NASCAR RULES!!!!! :bigwave:

This is what I was hoping I could do. Like I was saying in the other thread - I can't apply the AS standard to all of our work. Some of our customer specific requirements are not in accordance with the AS standard, and some of our customers don't care squat about registration - they just want their machine back up and running.

While a lot of the AS requirements fit nicely and can apply to all of our products, some would just be silly to try to apply to all. Like First Article Inspection for example.

ps - I can't wait to see what Ryan Newman is going to do this year. Should be interesting.

AS 9100 makes it quite clear that the requirements of the standard are complementary to customer-specific requirements - and in the event that a customer-specified requirement differs from the AS requirement, the customer requirement shall take precendence.

When an organization is seeking to register to the AS9100 International Standard is it permissible to only register a portion of their manufacturing operations (those operations that supply to the aerospace industry) to AS9100, and subsequently register the non-aerospace manufacturing operations to ISO 9001:2000?



The short answer is yes. However, as you probably already realized, some of the AS9100 adders are easy to "segregate" for the Aerospace product lines and some are very difficult to separate between Aerospace and non-Aerospace product lines.

As an EXAMPLE, the requirement for the organization to maintain a list of specific or non-specific tools and numerical control (NC) machine programs required and any specific instructions associated with their use could easily be limited ONLY to the Aerospace P/N's.

On the other hand a requirement such as: The organization shall maintain a register of these monitoring and measuring devices, and define the process employed for their calibration including details of equipment type, unique identification, location, frequency of checks, check method and acceptance criteria. ... is a hard one to separate, since I am sure, you use the same I,M&TE for Aerospace and non-aerospace parts.

The audit depends on the scope of registration. If the scope does not specify aerospace products, then it is assumed that the whole system can be audited to the AS9100 requirements.

When the scope indicates "Manufacture of aerospace...", you can convince the registrar to limit the scope of the audit to just the aerospace section. This should be clearly stated in the contract.

Time to open this thread back up. I was searching the Cove and this thread seems to follow the thoughts and concerns I have right now (give me 5 minutes and that might change... :lol: )

I am currently tasked with "modifying" my company's quality system to meet the AS9100 standard (for the purpose of ultimately registering to that standard). My company is registered to ISO9001:2000. I'm looking for advice on how to functionally document the differences between the aerospace requirements/work and the non-aerospace. I have an idea or two but I don't want to taint any suggestions.

Of course just to make it interesting, I need to take into consideration our medical devices too. While we currently aren't seeking ISO13485 registration, I know it's going to be right around the corner. If I'm going in to change documentation for AS9100, I might persue adding the ISO13485 items also. (I feel my documentation adequately addresses CFR820 requirements but those should probably be reviewed also and handled in appropriate manner pending suggestions).

Aren't cross-functional companies great to work at? :bonk: