Is the Aerospace industry the same as the Automotive industry?

Is the Aerospace industry the same as the Automotive industry?
If so why do the people that come from Automotive think the same rules apply to Aerospace?

Re: Aerospace verses Automotive Industry

Having worked in both, it's my impression that there are indeed many similarities between the two. One of the biggest differences, though, is the level of tolerances. While many of the physical skills required are the same, there is a monumental difference between building, say, a fender for an SUV and building a horizontal stabilator for a fighter jet.

From a Quality viewpoint, it's really not too much different. There's a slightly different standard, modified for that industry from the automotive standard, but the procedures and techniques are nearly identical.

Honestly, I enjoyed my time in aerospace much more than my time in automotive. Not exactly sure why, but I suspect it was the challenge of ensuring that those things were as exactly right as possible. It's a pretty important task, for a lot of reasons.

Re: Aerospace verses Automotive Industry

Both AS9100 (Aerospace Standard) and ISO/TS 16949 (Automotive Standard) are based on ISO 9001. The entirety of ISO 9001 in included in both. In each case, clauses have been added to make them pertinent for their industry segment.

Of the two standards, the Automotive one seems to actually be the stricter one, the the Automotive segment seems to be very proud of it.

You should realize that the mission of each standard is quite different due to the difference in the nature of the industry they serve. Aerospace is concerned mainly with making flight worthy parts with the controls needed to accomplish that mission. Automotive is concerned with extremely high levels of consistency with high volumes (volumes that Aerospace will never see) with extreme cost cutting pressures.

One of the main tools for achieving the high level of quality for Aerospace is the First Article Inspection.

One of the main tools for achieving the high level of consistency (another word for quality) in Automotive is the PPAP.

PPAP really only works well with high volume, but those who have extensively used it seem to believe that it works for everything.

Their seems to be some friction between the Aerospace and Automotive professionals. Because Automotive tends to be more progressive and is a stricter standard, they tend to think of themselves are more knowing than their more conservative Aerospace brethren. I can't tell you how many times I've heard Automotive guys say that Aerospace is stuck in the past. Indeed, one of the examples they quote is Aerospace's dogged insistence on continuing the use of an audit checklist. (A quick aside on the audit checklist, it appears that it mainly driven by a small group that successfully torpedoes every attempt to remove it.)

Only to add to the friction between the two, the same organization that developed auditor training for Automotive was selected to develop and provide training for AS9101D, the latest Aerospace standard on how to perform CB audits. The result was that the trainers brought many of their Automotive concepts (and preached them as requirements) to Aerospace auditors.

Somewhere in the above you can see that those who have worked in the Automotive sphere believe they have found a better way, and tend to stay with what worked for them in Automotive when they migrate into other industries.

I recently saw a request for a PPAP for an order of five pieces of a machined part. That's pretty much the epitome of silliness.

Very well stated Big Jim.
We have supervisors coming in from Automotive into the Aerpspace and changing everthing and stating what we are doing is wrong.
I am getting frustrated with it i have passed every Audit thrown at me in the last 10+ years with flying colors, and now they want to change all that. It feels to me like they are Sabatoging what has worked and still works, but need to change it.:ca:

Re: Aerospace verses Automotive Industry

True enough, Big Jim. That friction you mentioned is generated by both sides. When the auto industry tanked here in the STL area, many of the displaced auto workers migrated over to aerospace. One of my former coworkers, who was an old-timer MacDonnell-Douglas guy, used to refer to them as "those confounded door slammers," a reference to his belief that they didn't understand/appreciate/care that they were now building vehicles for national defense, and not minivans and pick-up trucks.

My reference to tighter tolerances was more concerning customer specifications rather than the AS9100 standard. I've seen parts for GMC trucks that you could see from 20 feet away on a check fixture were OOT. Conversely, I've seen scratches measuring 0.0015" deep in a composite control surface that you could only see with the naked eye if you were at the right angle and the light was just right...also OOT according to the Boeing spec.

If the automotive guys think the aerospace industry is behind the times - they better not go to work in the pharma/medical device world!


seriously tho, this industry bias is very common and seems like an inherent part of human nature. (my school is better than your school) We tend to think believe that what we have experienced is how the world should work. after all if it isnt' then we must be wrong or less competant, right? diversity is not our strong suit. and continual improvement is an abomination. too many of us are just comfortable with what we 'know' and too complacent to think there may be a better way tomorrow than what I employ today.

How many bankrupt/bailed out automotive companies vs. how many bankrupt/bailed out aerospace companies? I think I would tend to follow the more successful of the two.

Ford was one of the few that did not get bailed out.
Our customers in Aerospace have very very tight tolerances +/-.0001, and they expect production and Quality with good parts. OOT do not sell!

I've seen a whole wing skin from a prototype Eurofighter that was sat outside the clean room area where it was made for a year because it had minor issues that were borderline in any sector including aerospace. I got told that they couldn't decide what to do with it. Too expensive to scrap but they weren't sure it was acceptable.

That was the story told to me back then or what I could remember of it. It was for prototype / demonstrator for the Eurofighter programme before it was in production and I was a 16 year old school kid doing a summer job mostly for spends but figured the experience might be worth something later on. Man! How much would a hunk of exotic, aerospace grade carbon fibre that size cost?? Reckon with labour it ain't exactly pocket money.

Automotive strict? It seems to be a lot of paperwork with big tolerances too!!! A doddle!!

The stuff is cool looking. I can recall a 10 foot dummy bomb that we put together.As far as the proto types WOW. in aerospace things look nice then.......... BAM blown up.