AS9100 4.9 Process Control - Specify process documents and their revision levels

[gburns]

I've just been told by a Boeing QAR that was working to one of their checklists that 4.9 of AS9100 requires an organization to specify process documents and their revision levels on the planning that accompanies product through the realization cycle. Though unable to point out where precisely this is worded, she was quite emphatic that it was a requirement.

I can't find it. Can any of you?

As a side note, a copy of the relevant engineering drawing accompanies each piece of planning. This is where relevant process specifications are noted. I guess we expect our folks to read the drawings, and so far in 50 years of business it seems to have been a system that's worked for us.

 

[BadgerMan]

When Boeing did our upgrade audit (BQMS), they used the AS 9101 checklist. I don’t see that requirement (verbatim) in the AS 9101 checklist. However, we do comply with what she is asking for so it never became an issue during our audit. It looks like an “interpretation” of AS 9100, 4.9.1.1 and/or 4.2.4 to me. What was the question on her checklist that resulted in the observation/finding?

Funny thing, I have had several instances where external auditors have tried to impose their interpretations on us. Usually when you produce a copy of the standard and ask them to pinpoint the requirement, they back right off.

 

[gburns]

The Boeing "Product Audit Checklist" (Rev. 3/02), item B14 questions: "Applicable process specifications used to fabricate, assemble, or validate the product are noted on the planning document? (4.9)"

I was told that our inclusion of the applicable drawing in the traveler package used on the floor as part of the work instructions did not qualify, and that we were required to put all the items that were on the drawing onto the "planning" (a router with chronological operations, sign-offs, and supplemental instructions).

When I asked the auditor where in 4.9 of the standard this requirement is (and they don't reference which standard, but you can guess which one and which revision level they meant), she responded with the Boeing 800-pound gorilla stance and told me she wasn't used to being challanged. Sigh. Sometimes I hate aerospace.

 

[Hoeyster]

OK let me get this straight. You have engineering drawings for every process in the product realization process and you have them identified on the shop router / traveler and that isn't good enough?
Where is 4.9 in AS9100B. I have the standard sitting right in front of me and there is no 4.9

To quote gburns: YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I've been in this business for over 25 years and it's worked for me too.
Sounds like we have an uppity auditor here.

As a side note, a copy of the relevant engineering drawing accompanies each piece of planning. This is where relevant process specifications are noted. I guess we expect our folks to read the drawings, and so far in 50 years of business it seems to have been a system that's worked for us.

 

[Justin]

I am confused as well.

Section 4 of the AS9100 B standard ends with 4.3 Configuration Management.

If 4.9 is supposed to be Process Control, could someone tell me what 4.4 through 4.8 are as well.

I cannot believe I made it through my AS9100 registration audit with all those missing elements without any findings.

 

[RCW]

Where is 4.9 in AS9100B. I have the standard sitting right in front of me and there is no 4.9

Looking at the date when this link originally started (2002), Rev B of AS9100 was not released yet. I don't remember when the non-rev to Rev A jump happened but AS9100 was originally aligned to the 1994 version of ISO 9000. (Rev A, the transition rev, had alignment to both 1994 and 2000 versions of ISO 9000).

 

[Cari Spears]

Looking at the date when this link originally started (2002), Rev B of AS9100 was not released yet.

Exactly - thank you, RCW.