AS9100 & Related Aerospace Standards - List

[THamlett]

Has there been any talk of how to approach change C to AMS 2700?
AMS QQ-P-35 "A" was cancelled in 2-05 and we were suppose to move to AMS 2700 "B". However, the Primes didn't like some of the wording (Citric Acid use) and the sample plans so we were told to use AMS QQ-P-35 "98". (Which was superceeded by Rev-A but both A & 98 were released in May '98!) Now, 2700 Rev-C has changed the language to follow QQ-P closer and has gone back to the MIL-STD for sampling. However, it does state that when parts come in and testing is called out per AMS QQ-P-35 that verification testing must be accomplished per 2700.
So now, I don't think AMS QQ-P-35 has been cancelled but I'm not real sure.
We still get PO's calling out ASTM E-1444-99! So it's not just telling the customer, I have to work to the latest and he has to request what's on the print.

Let me give you a perspective as a metal finisher supplying passivation services.

The specs are ENGINEERING documents. It is up to the engineers designing the parts to follow the trail of superseding documents and call out the proper spec on the print at the time of design.

As the supplier it is not my task to determine what superseding spec to use for a passivation job. The Purchase Order is my contract and I'm going to passivate the work to the spec called out on the PO. If the PO says QQ-P-35 I'm going to use Rev C. If the PO says QQ-P-35, Rev A, that revision is what I'm going to use. I don't care what the blueprint says.

So...Engineers. Do your job and call out the proper spec to begin with and then when the spec is superseded then issue an ECO or whatever your company calls it and make the change. I'm still going to use the spec appearing on the PO.

 

[Ray Kremer]

Let me give you a perspective as a metal finisher supplying passivation services.

The specs are ENGINEERING documents. It is up to the engineers designing the parts to follow the trail of superseding documents and call out the proper spec on the print at the time of design.

As the supplier it is not my task to determine what superseding spec to use for a passivation job. The Purchase Order is my contract and I'm going to passivate the work to the spec called out on the PO. If the PO says QQ-P-35 I'm going to use Rev C. If the PO says QQ-P-35, Rev A, that revision is what I'm going to use. I don't care what the blueprint says.

So...Engineers. Do your job and call out the proper spec to begin with and then when the spec is superseded then issue an ECO or whatever your company calls it and make the change. I'm still going to use the spec appearing on the PO.

I sympathize with Randy Stewart's plight, AMS 2700 in particular has had a very messy history. AMS QQ-P-35 was cancelled in 2005, but sometimes I get the impression that certain people with their fingers in 2700 wish it wasn't.

THamlett's approach is probably the simplest one. Obviously when a standard gets a revision, SAE or ASTM or whomever is generally expecting everybody to move to the more recent copy, but in reality existing paperwork rarely gets changed, and they can't actually stop people from referring to out-of-date documents. If a specific old revision is called out on the PO or drawing, then I think it would be appropriate to ask for clarity, if there is a reason they want the older version or if the current version is acceptable. If a cancelled spec is called for, in certain circumstances the cancellation notice gives an automatic rollover. (The QQ-P-35 notice explicitly says that all DoD contracts calling for QQ-P-35 can use the replacement standards instead, but for a non-DoD job you'd probably be safer asking for permission to use them.)

 

[howste]

The latest published IAQG Standards Register dated March 2016

This thread has been around for a while - Any comments now that it is 2016? Or should I "Un-Stick" it?

Here's the latest published IAQG Standards Register dated March 2016.

The AS9100 Rev D standard is expected to be released approximately 9/22/2016, so it should get another update soon.

 

[howste]

Re: The latest published IAQG Standards Register dated March 2016

Here's the latest published IAQG Standards Register dated September 2016.

It was updated prior to release of the AS9100 Rev D standard, so the next update should include it, along with (hopefully) AS9101 Rev F, AS9110 Rev C, and AS9120 Rev B which are all supposed to be released later this month.

 

[Motol]

This might sound like a stupid question, so forgive me in advance. When I was looking up FAIR training on the AAQG website, it says to halt a FAIR when there's a non-conformance, which I understand, but then it tells me to refer to AS 9131. I'm certified under AS 9100 Rev. B, so do I really need to spend $63 to read AS 9131 when it's not the standard I have to conform to? Or is it? How do the "related standards" apply to me?

 

[howste]

This might sound like a stupid question, so forgive me in advance. When I was looking up FAIR training on the AAQG website, it says to halt a FAIR when there's a non-conformance, which I understand, but then it tells me to refer to AS 9131. I'm certified under AS 9100 Rev. B, so do I really need to spend $63 to read AS 9131 when it's not the standard I have to conform to? Or is it? How do the "related standards" apply to me?

AS9131 is not a requirement of AS9100. It's only a requirement if it's imposed in a contract or requirement you've agreed to with your customer(s). IAQG/AAQG would like everyone to use all of their standards, but it's not required.

This standard was created to provide for the uniform submittal of nonconformance information for notification and/or approval when contractually invoked at any level or as guidance within the aviation, space, and defense industry. This standard can be invoked as a stand-alone requirement or used in conjunction with 9100-series standards (i.e., 9100, 9110, 9120).

PS - I doubt that you're certified to AS9100 Rev B. It was superseded years ago with Rev C.

 

[howste]

Here's the latest published IAQG Standards Register dated June 2017.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

And for the latest version of the IAQG Standards Register, see the attached file, updated back in July 2018. It already lists AS9147 for the management of unsalvageable parts (scrap parts).

 

[lyuluck]

thanks for the list