AS9100D Clause 8.5.1.2 Validation and Control of Special Processes

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
It would help if you transposed the exact text of your request, because, as Howste mentioned Tim Lee's answer was not in line with the question you posed here. Further, in my estimation, this question should be posed to the IAQG document representative for the AS9101 standard, not the AS9100 document, since the issue deals with 3rd party audits, which is the realm of 9101.

The IDR for the IAQG 9101 document is Mr. Brian Geer from Lockheed Martin and his contact information is available via the IAQG website.

Furthermore, it is very possible that the IAQG might not want to make a ruling on this and want CB auditors to use their judgment, when and if crossing that bridge.
 

dsanabria

Quite Involved in Discussions
It would help if you transposed the exact text of your request, because, as Howste mentioned Tim Lee's answer was not in line with the question you posed here. Further, in my estimation, this question should be posed to the IAQG document representative for the AS9101 standard, not the AS9100 document, since the issue deals with 3rd party audits, which is the realm of 9101.

The IDR for the IAQG 9101 document is Mr. Brian Geer from Lockheed Martin and his contact information is available via the IAQG website.

Furthermore, it is very possible that the IAQG might not want to make a ruling on this and want CB auditors to use their judgment, when and if crossing that bridge.

Thanks for the insight information - I shall purse that avenue...
 
Z

zucccchini

Now, let us clarify this as I also have considered it two different things. We do both. We send machined parts out (outsourced) but only to ISO certified or NADCAP certified companies. Special Processes. But we also destruct welds to check for thickness and integrity in shop and have a Passivation process that is validated regularly. Both of those processes would come under Clause 8.5.1.2?
 

dsanabria

Quite Involved in Discussions
I agree that it only shows examples, and is definitely not all inclusive. The fact that they don't even mention NADCAP or other independent approvals as evidence might lead some to believe that IAQG doesn't consider them to be evidence. That's not what it says, but it could be enough to start rumors, as David says:



Good logic IMO. I believe that NADCAP accreditation is evidence, but should not be relied upon as the only evidence in an AS9100 audit.

David, you might consider asking for a clarification through OASIS to get an "official" interpretation from the IAQG. They would most likely answer similar to what Sidney said and then there will be no question.


Still waiting for a reply from AS9100 and AS9101 or anyone but... nothing. Not sure how to escalate this issue.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
It might be because you are expecting some form of "arbitration" and that is not the intention of feedback loops to standard SDR's. The following is from the IAQG OASIS Feedback loop presentation

The feedback process should not be used as an arbitration mechanism. Document Representative questions should relate to intent of the standard only - not specific scenarios.

If an AEA is in doubt if s/he could rely on a Nadcap accreditation to adjust the audit time and depth of the audit of special processes, s/he should consult with the CB technical manager responsible for the aerospace scheme.
 
Last edited:
Z

zucccchini

Upon further reading, I see they have added in the AS9100D Production Process Verification 8.5.1.3. That would cover the in-house validation processes I was looking for. As far as the outsourced Special processes conundrum, I am forced to stick with the NADCAP, ISO cert. for suppliers to outsource too.
 

Leyla57

Registered
You can send a supplier survey form, to see if they are per your requirements and have them send their certs if they are ISO/AS certified, or you can look them up on OASIS.
Then you have an approved supplier per requirements and have the certification
 

howste

Thaumaturge
Trusted Information Resource
It might be because you are expecting some form of "arbitration" and that is not the intention of feedback loops to standard SDR's. The following is from the IAQG OASIS Feedback loop presentation

The feedback process should not be used as an arbitration mechanism. Document Representative questions should relate to intent of the standard only - not specific scenarios.

FYI the newest version of the feedback presentation (dated July 2017) is found here. It's been updated to the new OASIS NG format, but that text in it hasn't changed.
 
Top Bottom