AS9100 Certification - Applicability to an FAA Certified Repair Service Station

[B.K. Hixson]

My company is an FAA certified repair station. We are currently gearing up to provide induction services i.e., disassembly, cleaning, parts preservation, etc. for a prime aerospace company. They are flowing down the requirements of AS9100 to us. After spending much time reading the requirements of AS9100, it appears to be geared toward manufacturing operations, which we don't do. My challenge is in trying to figure out how to tailor the requirements of AS9100 to our company and vice versa. This is my reason for joining this forum. I am hoping to find some guidance from folks who know more about this than I do. Any advice or insight is greatly appreciated.

 

[BadgerMan]

Most elements of the standard will also apply to a service organization/operation.

Examples to consider:

Management Review
Quality System
Contract Review
Document Control
Process Control
Inspection and Testing
Control of NC Mat'l
Corrective/Preventive Action
Control of Quality Records
Internal Audits
Training
Servicing
Etc.

Our repair station (and mfg. operation) has been certified ISO 9001 since 1998 and AS 9100 since November 2001. We will be upgrading to AS 9100a this December. When you choose a registrar, you will have to work with them to determine the scope of your audit/certification and which elements apply. I would choose a registrar who has experience in auditing/certifying service organizations, preferably FAA certified repair stations.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

If your client is willing to wait, and you are basically a repair and overhaul facility, AS9110 would probably be a better document for you to model your quality system around.

I don't know what is the hold up for the issuance of AS9110 and 9120. In the AAQG meetings, both documents had been reported as approved some months ago.

 

[B.K. Hixson]

I certainly wish we could wait, unfortunately that is not an option for us now. I have been waiting for the release of the new AS9110 standard, but it appears that waiting has been in vain. When I asked our customer quality rep if they could possibly accept it in place of AS9100, I was told that wouldn't happen. Since we are a subcontractor for them, we must implement the AS9100 standard. The prevailing thinking of both our management and our customer quality rep is that there is a possibility that we may become more involved in some limited manufacturing for the customer in the future. Hence the need for us to be AS9100 compliant.

So far we have no requirement from the customer to become certified by an industry controlled other party, however that may change in the future, (I'll interject here customer=Boeing)

If it comes to that, I'm sure I'll be visting this site more frequently.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Withrow]

I run the Quality system for an aerospace electronics manufacturing division, an electronics distribution division, and an FAA repair station, and I just created a new manual for AS9101A for all three divisions, so I know how you feel.

Keep in mind that you still have most of the processes that a manufacturing facility uses, Purchasing, inspection, calibration, configuration, work instructions, packaging, non-conforming material, etc., so writing the manual really isn't as hard as it looks. You just need to envision your facility as a production facility, and utilize the exceptions clause to the fullest for the pure manufacturing operations that you don't need or use. Your manual won't be all that big or in depth, and will still follow all of the requirements.

Also remember that if you are held to FAR 145 by the FAA, they are requiring that between April 2003 and April 2004 that you rewrite your repair manual to coincide with ISO 9000:2000, which AS9100 was modeled after. So you would have to do this anyway.

Good Luck

 

[assuranceman]

I just came back from a Boeing Symposium. They are "strongly encouraging" suppliers to become AS9100 registered.

 

[F Dumas]

Reply to Hal

We are currently performing an internal assessment for the Boeing Preferred Suppliers Program, which is much more than the requirements from AS9000 (however in the same direction).

When you are reviewing your Quality Management, you must have the corporate strategy in mind - hopefully you have one and it is known. From that point, you know the depth you need to go.

Cheers!

 

[Cari Spears]

...Also remember that if you are held to FAR 145 by the FAA, they are requiring that between April 2003 and April 2004 that you rewrite your repair manual to coincide with ISO 9000:2000, which AS9100 was modeled after. So you would have to do this anyway...

I'm just starting to research AS9100 and FAR part 145 (no prior experience) and thought I'd check out this forum. Anyway, I came upon this statement.

Can someone tell me if this is an accurate statement? I've been browsing AC145-MAN, it does state that the repair station may use applicable portions of its ISO manual or other quality system to show compliance with part 145. Am I missing something?

 

[assuranceman]

The FAA publishes an "Advisory Circular" (AC) which tells you in detail what is wanted in your repair station manual. As far as I know the FAA does not impose ISO9000-2000.

 

[Raptorwild]

I'm just starting to research AS9100 and FAR part 145 (no prior experience) and thought I'd check out this forum. Anyway, I came upon this statement.

Can someone tell me if this is an accurate statement? I've been browsing AC145-MAN, it does state that the repair station may use applicable portions of its ISO manual or other quality system to show compliance with part 145. Am I missing something?

Hi Cari!
We have just transistioned from ISO9001:1994 Registered AS9001 Compliant to AS9100A Registered with 11 nonconformances. Our main customer is Honeywell and they are requiring their suppliers become AS9100 Registered and FAR part 145 also. I will be looking into this in the next few months and would love to see more posts on this subject, since it is new to me too!
The more we learn together the more we can share!

Paula

<!-- / message -->