ISO vs. EASA/FAA (145) - In aviation sector, why bother with any ISO?

[Turbomark]

In aviation sector, why to bother with any ISO, including EN9100 and similar since FAR 145 or EASA Part 145 is what is needed for a repair facility to be authorized, except to be more attractive in the market and ofcourse all good ISO things? Is there any equivelant to ISO standards for US or Canada? Thanks!

[Sidney Vianna]

Originally Posted by Turbomark

Why to bother with any ISO, including EN9100 and similar since FAR 145 or EASA Part 145 is what is needed for a repair facility to be authorized, except to be more attractive in the market and ofcourse all good ISO things? Is there any equivelant to ISO standards for US or Canada? Thanks!

Welcome to The Cove. This stance has been the traditional positioning of organizations that operate in highly regulated environments, such as Aerospace, Medical, Food, etc... Regulatory compliance is obviously a major business issue, but when you operate in a competitive marketplace (and most of us, do), you have to go beyond regulatory compliance in order to prosper and thrive. All things being equal in terms of regulatory compliance, customers will migrate towards suppliers that are committed to customer satisfaction.

A robust quality management system can provide, not only for regulatory compliance, but effectiveness and efficiency gains, as well. AS/EN 9110, the current model for an Aerospace QMS maintenance, repair & overhaul model is gaining momentum worldwide.

Suggest you do a search here @ The Cove for 9110 and also peruse this article that I wrote a couple of years ago for Quality Digest.

[gard2372]

Originally Posted by Turbomark

In aviation sector, why to bother with any ISO, including EN9100 and similar since FAR 145 or EASA Part 145 is what is needed for a repair facility to be authorized, except to be more attractive in the market and ofcourse all good ISO things? Is there any equivelant to ISO standards for US or Canada? Thanks!

Turbo, try this link. It should give you a good perspective from within the aviation community on it's benefits.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/cate...enance/86.html

In any case your Repair Station has a Repair Station Manual and a Quality procedures Manual already. A simple Gap analysis between Part 145 and EASA from ISO or AS9100 will tell your organization where it would have to create documented procedures and pratices to meet the ISO or AS9100/AS9110 standards.

To put it simply, you can create a Quality Managmenet System that's compliant with ISO, but if you're willing to go that far, and depending on your company's size and business outlook (global customers) why not make the small investment to become certified to ISO or AS9100?

[Turbomark]

Dear friends Sidney Vianna and Gard2372, being new in this discusion environment I am positivelly impresed with your immediate and accuret responces. Therefore I understand that during an "air crash" investigation what the board is looking is: if the maintenance facility comply with regs like FAA or EASA and not realy with ISO, since to be EASA certified you need to provide the "Organization exposistion" or Quality plan anyway!! Therefore ISO is more a marketing or "houskeeping" tool, although I agree -if missed-, it could be a .."contributing" factor for the crach. Am I right? Thanks again

[Sidney Vianna]

Originally Posted by Turbomark

Therefore ISO is more a marketing or "houskeeping" tool, although I agree -if missed-, it could be a .."contributing" factor for the crach. Am I right?

ISO 9001, EN 9110 are just standards. The goal, however, when implementing standards such as these is to reach an effective and efficient quality system in place. Having a robust system would prevent or minimize the chances of an unsafe flight hardware being released from your plant and triggering a crash.

Regulatory compliance is paid attention to because it is mandated (for a number of stakeholders). Compliance to ISO 9001, EN 9110 and other standards does not take center stage because it is voluntary.

[Turbomark]

Dear Sidney,
Answer quite clear. Case closed from my part. Thank you

[Randy]

Turbo..

Sidney and Gard have been pretty quick and right on...AS9110 can help you meet FAR Part 145 and relevant portions of Part 43 as well.


As for a contributing factor in a crash? It's not the lack of or presence of AS9110, crashes occurred and were prevented long before AS9110, FAR 145, FAR 43, EASA 145 or anything else. I've crashed in aircraft that have met the FAR's and MIL-Q's and all that and in the end stuff still breaks and people still make mistakes.

AS, FAR, EASA and the others are nothing more than tools that can be used to manage the risks associated with aviation manufacturing, aviation maintenace and repair, and aviation support operations.

[Coury Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Sidney Vianna

ISO 9001, EN 9110 are just standards. The goal, however, when implementing standards such as these is to reach an effective and efficient quality system in place. Having a robust system would prevent or minimize the chances of an unsafe flight hardware being released from your plant and triggering a crash.

It appears that when AS9100 is required by a Supplier by the OEM such as Boeing, for flight hardware; why does Boeing require a Supplier to achieve AS9100 registration for non-flight hardware? Isn't this kinda of contradictory to what the intent of AS9100 is, or am I way off base here?