What Have They Done to AS9101? Was this really necessary?

A

Al Dyer

Bradley,

Welcome to the Cove!

May I ask you if the article referenced was written by you? It was a very well written and informative piece.

Al...
 
B

Bradley

A colleague and I wrote this acrticle. We are 2 very frustrated AIEA's who have been in the Registration and Training business for the past 15 years. We wrote to get it off our chest and decided to share it - and get some feedback. There are may fellow auditors (good ones) who are quite disapointed with what "they" did to the AS9100 and AS9101. Glad you enjoyed it! But we have to live with it!
 

Big Jim

Admin
This is Bradley's 1st post.

Since he is so new, he is considered a "shy poster".

This doesn't look like the work of a shy poster to me. Thank you for being bold enough to point out some of the short comings of AS9101D. As for the "Objective Evidence Report", if it walks like a checklist and it talks like a checklist, it probably is a checklist. My apologies to the ducks.
 

dsanabria

Quite Involved in Discussions
Was this really necessary?????

Very Nice article::applause::applause::applause:

NOTE: according to the chart APPENDIX F (Determination for percentage of work for Aerospace) is only required for Stage 1 - after that it's not done, revised or updated.


In addition to your excellent description of reality - have you taken the AATT course - and does it match your experiences. Dis they help you understand the process
 

howste

Thaumaturge
Trusted Information Resource
Hi Bradley, welcome to The Cove forums. :bigwave:

Your paper was an interesting read. I understand and agree with some points, but definitely not all. As the saying goes though, it's easier to tear down an outhouse than to build one. What specific recommendations do you have to fix the system that "they" have imposed?
 
A

AS9100 C Curious

Wow! Very impressive the new Rev has so many people with there arms flailing but this puts it in a better perspective. Really nice!!!! Can you say nightmare?:applause:
 
D

dszeredi

:applause::applause::applause:
Excellent article Bradely. I am glad to see that other experienced auditors are starting to point out some of the significant shortcomings of AS9101 Rev D and the ICOP process. My only comment to the article is in regards to the percentage of Aerospace Business. My take on this is that the “Primes” or the big boys in the IAQG want to make us into 2nd party auditors without the power of 2nd party auditors. Once again, it is a cost effective way for them to manage this process. But does it provide value to the Aerospace consumer and does it provide an effective audit for the non-aerospace customers that are not covered under the “percentage breakdown” and are only ISO?
PS: Mirrors only provide “surface detail” (by the way an excellent novel) and only reflect the suit you are wearing at the time.
Cheeers
DSzeredi
 
B

Bradley

Hi Bradley, welcome to The Cove forums. :bigwave:

Your paper was an interesting read. I understand and agree with some points, but definitely not all. As the saying goes though, it's easier to tear down an outhouse than to build one. What specific recommendations do you have to fix the system that "they" have imposed?
Thank you for agreeing it is an outhouse! I gree with you - it is always easy to critisize. Unfortunately, it is those in the trenches, and the clients (not suppliers) that have had little impact on the final release of AS9100 and certainly AS9101D. I most definately will post my recommendations. If you would be so kind as to identify which parts of my article you disagree with.
Cheers!
Bradley
 
B

Bradley

Correct, however, as I said, I have had a CB challenge my report because my sample did not reflect the "ratio". In fact, I completed an audit yesterday, wgere there was no Bombardier work being manufactured in the plant. While this client's aerospace workload is only 20% of the business, 50% of this 20% is Bombardier. It was a slow day. I could not pick a sample of Bombardier work. I am sure to catch heck when I submit my report. How bloody silly! A process is a process - regardless of who the customer is. I guses thats the point I was trying to make.
Cheers
Bradley
 
Top Bottom