AS 9100 Registrar Audits: Failure Modes
- Thread starter Marc
- Start date
Thanks for starting the thread. I'm very interested in the responses to come.
Our registrar recently reassigned our account to an AS certified auditor. We figure on 12-18 months for implementation because I'm going to be working on certification to FAA Part 145 - Repair Station concurrently. I'm hoping to be able to pick his brain at our next one or two ISO audits - I'll pass along anything interesting here.
Our registrar recently reassigned our account to an AS certified auditor. We figure on 12-18 months for implementation because I'm going to be working on certification to FAA Part 145 - Repair Station concurrently. I'm hoping to be able to pick his brain at our next one or two ISO audits - I'll pass along anything interesting here.
Anyone recently registered to AS9100 with anything to share? We are planning on having our registration audit in May 2005.
We're having our last ISO surveillance audit tomorrow - but our registrar is kindly sending an AS auditor. I explained that I did not want to pay for a whole pre-assessment because I felt I understood the majority of the requirements and we have implemented quite a few things as a result of our recent customer audits. I asked for an AS auditor so he can say things like "that's great for ISO, but for AS...". I'm spending the day today (among other things) getting all of my AS questions together. I'd love to hear others' experiences.
We're having our last ISO surveillance audit tomorrow - but our registrar is kindly sending an AS auditor. I explained that I did not want to pay for a whole pre-assessment because I felt I understood the majority of the requirements and we have implemented quite a few things as a result of our recent customer audits. I asked for an AS auditor so he can say things like "that's great for ISO, but for AS...". I'm spending the day today (among other things) getting all of my AS questions together. I'd love to hear others' experiences.
A
Aerospace Man
One of the reasons the registrar is putting an AEA (Aerospace Experience Auditor) on your ISO surveillance is to allow you to receive 33% off of your initial ISO 9000 section of the quote they would provide you. The industry tells us we can do that.
They are providing you a good service to do that.
I guess the question is whether you are an MRO (Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul). If you are, and do not "change" the product, you could be able to do AS9110 (which has some of the aspects of 145).
They are providing you a good service to do that.
I guess the question is whether you are an MRO (Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul). If you are, and do not "change" the product, you could be able to do AS9110 (which has some of the aspects of 145).
K
kreco
"Contrary to AS9100, Clause 7.4.3, which states that the organization shall periodically validate test reports for raw material, there is no documented evidence to show that this is being done".
This was our finding during our AS 9100 registration audit. Our organization did not have the internal capabilities to validate test reports for a particular raw material. We ended up having to send product to an external lab for validation. We have had one surveillance audit since and there were no findings during that audit.
This was our finding during our AS 9100 registration audit. Our organization did not have the internal capabilities to validate test reports for a particular raw material. We ended up having to send product to an external lab for validation. We have had one surveillance audit since and there were no findings during that audit.
barb butrym
Quite Involved in Discussions
AS9101 findings
I do supplier AS9100 audits for a major PRP manufacturer/OEM and what I find most is the implied calibration requirement (that is reinforced by the OEM in the PO !!) for reliability/confidence level of 95%, that the items in the calibration system not be in an out of tolerance condition, as found, at the end of its calibrataion cycle. But obviously the registras are not looking at it or I wouldn't find it so much. Most address the significantly OOT stuff, but not the interval adjustment for the tweeking of slightly OOT stuff that do not adversley effect the product.
Software is another huge issue I fall over all the time...As well as self inflicted requirements, preventive maintenance and metal to metal contact/storage of gages and parts. Also run into FOD red lights (missing tools especially)
I do supplier AS9100 audits for a major PRP manufacturer/OEM and what I find most is the implied calibration requirement (that is reinforced by the OEM in the PO !!) for reliability/confidence level of 95%, that the items in the calibration system not be in an out of tolerance condition, as found, at the end of its calibrataion cycle. But obviously the registras are not looking at it or I wouldn't find it so much. Most address the significantly OOT stuff, but not the interval adjustment for the tweeking of slightly OOT stuff that do not adversley effect the product.
Software is another huge issue I fall over all the time...As well as self inflicted requirements, preventive maintenance and metal to metal contact/storage of gages and parts. Also run into FOD red lights (missing tools especially)
We had our AS9100B registration audit at the end of September and received our certificates on November 10th. Yay for us!!
We received 8 minor nonconformances that did not require on-site verification because they were such isolated incidents. They were as follows:
#1 - There was no audit evidence that the type of measurement instrument required and any specific instructions associated with their use was documented. 8.2.4.1
(We had part specific gages, fixtures, etc. listed on our routers and process drawings but not general instruments like calipers, micrometers, height gages, etc.)
#2 was a nonconformance written against one of our own internal procedures and not AS specific.
#3 - The disposition of use-as-is was used without being specifically authorized by the customer. 8.3
(He found a job that we had received verbal approval to ship a part with one nonconforming characteristic because it was a part for engineering testing. We now require at least an email acknowledgement of concession.)
#4 - There was no audit evidence that the frequency of checks was defined. 7.6
(Our gage logs and calibration stickers indicated the next due date for calibration but we did not specifically state the calibration frequency anywhere.)
#5 - There was no audit evidence that measuring equipment was identified to enable the calibration status to be determined. 7.6b
(Our calibration technician removed an outside calibration lab's sticker because they had a different due date than what we have determined for one of our Micro-Hites and he forgot to put one of our internal calibration stickers in its place.)
#6 - There was no audit evidence that the organization assessed and recorded the validity of the previous measuring results when the equipment was found not to conform with requirements. 7.6
(Our process is the QA Manager (me
) is notified of out of spec readings as received so that I can determine if we need to assess previous measurements. We are doing this for all internally calibrated equipment but I was not being notified when gage blocks were replaced by the outside calibration lab.)
#7 - There was no audit evidence of shelf life control. 7.5.5e
(He found an expired bottle of Loc-Tite in our assembly room.)
#8 - Containers of cleaners, lubricants and wastes throughout the facility are not marked. 7.5.5 & our internal procedure for Preservation of Product.
(He observed numerous containers such as coffee cans, spray bottles, paper coffee cups, etc. without identification.)
We received 8 minor nonconformances that did not require on-site verification because they were such isolated incidents. They were as follows:
#1 - There was no audit evidence that the type of measurement instrument required and any specific instructions associated with their use was documented. 8.2.4.1
(We had part specific gages, fixtures, etc. listed on our routers and process drawings but not general instruments like calipers, micrometers, height gages, etc.)
#2 was a nonconformance written against one of our own internal procedures and not AS specific.
#3 - The disposition of use-as-is was used without being specifically authorized by the customer. 8.3
(He found a job that we had received verbal approval to ship a part with one nonconforming characteristic because it was a part for engineering testing. We now require at least an email acknowledgement of concession.)
#4 - There was no audit evidence that the frequency of checks was defined. 7.6
(Our gage logs and calibration stickers indicated the next due date for calibration but we did not specifically state the calibration frequency anywhere.)
#5 - There was no audit evidence that measuring equipment was identified to enable the calibration status to be determined. 7.6b
(Our calibration technician removed an outside calibration lab's sticker because they had a different due date than what we have determined for one of our Micro-Hites and he forgot to put one of our internal calibration stickers in its place.)
#6 - There was no audit evidence that the organization assessed and recorded the validity of the previous measuring results when the equipment was found not to conform with requirements. 7.6
(Our process is the QA Manager (me
) is notified of out of spec readings as received so that I can determine if we need to assess previous measurements. We are doing this for all internally calibrated equipment but I was not being notified when gage blocks were replaced by the outside calibration lab.)#7 - There was no audit evidence of shelf life control. 7.5.5e
(He found an expired bottle of Loc-Tite in our assembly room.)
#8 - Containers of cleaners, lubricants and wastes throughout the facility are not marked. 7.5.5 & our internal procedure for Preservation of Product.
(He observed numerous containers such as coffee cans, spray bottles, paper coffee cups, etc. without identification.)
K
K T THOMAS
Hello Marc,
Why dont you get the checklist AS 9101C and answer all questions to your satisfaction ? There cannot be any pitfalls.
Thanks
Why dont you get the checklist AS 9101C and answer all questions to your satisfaction ? There cannot be any pitfalls.
Thanks
Similar threads
