AS9100 Requirements for Supplier & Subtier Supplier Control

[surfguy72]

Hello Everyone,

First time posting, so I hope I can portray my question in a non-newbee way.

We are an AS9100 facility that is going after PMA work. We are in the process of getting our first one, and I am in charge of our supply base. I am begining to butt heads with our PAH over establishing approved suppliers and what that intails. For non-aerospace supplying companies, it would seem prudent to do an on-site audit, seems given. However, for AS9100 facilities supplying the aerospace industry, what type of audits have you all done? My thinking is if a 3rd party has come in and audited a facility to AS9100, that only a few things need to be understood by the facility in order to be supplying into the PMA world. Then the question comes up of what about their supplier's suppliers. I have read through AC 21-43, and other texts, and it presents an issue of how much control, and how much before they are deemed approved. Curious to hear other's encounters.

[Marc]

A quick "Bump". My Thanks in advance to anyone who can help with this one.

[Jeff Frost]

You could do a supplier audit based on your contract with the supplier. If you are only requiring them to be ISO certified then an AS9100C audit is not prudent and would only cause problems. Also under Clause 7.1.2, Risk Management, of AS9100 you should look at your supplier base and start with the suppliers that pose the highest risk to your organization under your PMA.

[BadgerMan]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jeff Frost

you should look at your supplier base and start with the suppliers that pose the highest risk to your organization under your PMA.

Yes, and this should be reflected in the procedures you develop and maintain. As an example, for low-risk suppliers, we do not perform on-site surveillance.

For some insight regarding what the FAA is looking for, you could also review Appendix D, Section 6 of the order 8100.7.

[surfguy72]

Thanks to the posters so far. The 8100.7 is a big help. Still left ambigious, I feel. But thats the federal gov't for you. Any more comments would be appreciated as the more examples we have the more we know what really happens outside of the the text.