AS9100 procedures and format - Several questions

[amyers]

I have several questions concerning AS9100 procedures/format, and would appreciate clarification:
Reference the PAR/CAR form Part B-
1. Why are there two titles in Part B, i.e., "Manager Representative/Auditor"?
Reference Part C-
1.How does "planned completion date" fit in when Part C asks for "Action to remove/mitigate root cause(s). Assuming the action has been taken, what is the purpose of the planned date?
QMS Process-
1. Is there a regulatory/reference that explains why there is an owner of a process, yet has no authority to ensure the dots a connected concerning
procedures? Although someone is responsible for a particu;lar Procedure in the Process, who besides the CEO is responsible for ensuring all interested parties (prosedure blocks) and talking to each other; It would seem that the auditor should not be the one to continually determine that folks are not talking to one another and connecting the dots in the Process.
Reference Part B,C, & D-
1. Why the switch from "Accountable Manager" to "Accountable Supervisor", then back to "Accountable Manager"?
Reference Part D-
1.Who does the verification?
It would appear that the manager should first complete this section in order for the auditor to smoke him/her out concerning procedures used to ensure corrective action was in fact corrected; the auditor can then confirm. Is there any latitude here?

Thanks,
AM

[howste]

First off, welcome to the cove!

Was there supposed to be an attachment to your post? All of your questions are specific to things that aren't part of the AS9100 standard. There is no official AS9100 PAR/CAR form...

[Sidney Vianna]

Amy, like Howste said, your questions are not related to the actual AS9100 Standard. I suspect that you are looking at a command media package supposed to comply with AS9100.

AS9100 does NOT specify procedure formats, process ownership, etc . . .

Unfortunately your questions are not clear. Let me suggest that the quality of potential answers in this forum are directly affected by the clarity of the questions.

And, yes you do have a lot of latitude to comply with the Std.

Concerning your other post, the Regulatory Authorities do have authority to review anything related to components safety, airworthiness, etc . . . So, sure they sure have access to your CAR/PAR records. AS9100 is full of references to right of access by authorities and customers. But actually, that is redundant since the Authorities have always had that right.

[Cari Spears]

Hi AM,

We're upgrading to AS9100 right now too. We're targeting May 2005 for our registration audit. Are you currently ISO9001:2000 registered? - Or are you FAA certificated? If so, which to which part? I ask because of the other thread you started that said you'd been informed that the FAA is going to AS9100. I'd not heard anything like that - but I'm asking about that in the other thread.

Welcome to the Cove!!

[Sidney Vianna]

The FAA has reviewed AS9100 and has posted it's position here.

But they make it clear that accredited certification to AS9100 does NOT replace compliance to CFR Title 14, Part 21, which is mandated by LAW.

Nevertheless, a couple of FAA centers have implemented and attained certification to AS9100.
During the AAQG meetings that I attend, we always have representatives from the FAA. They are watching very carefully the adequacy of the oversight process being promoted by the OEMs. I believe that it is possible in the long run for the FAA to adjust their level of policing based on the performance of Aerospace suppliers under the Industry Controlled Oversight Process - ICOP.

It wouldn't be Aerospace if we did not have another acronym

[Cari Spears]

Thanks Sidney!

[Al Rosen]

Cari, if you are a parts mfr, you will be interested in the FAA ACSEP.

[Cari Spears]

Thanks Al - we are currently interested in Part 145 Repair Station Certification - but we have talked about making parts as well. Our Repair Station rating will be a specialized limited rating for the maintenance and repair of ballscrews, ballnuts, and ballscrew assemblies.

Our regular repair work frequently involves replacing the nut, the screw, or both if not repairable. Sometimes we order stock stuff from the OEM and sometimes we manufacture complete to their drawing or we reverse engineer from the part they sent in for repair evaluation.

So, I'm not sure where that may fit in with FAA certification for us in the future, but it's likely to.