Changing Registrars

[AndyN]

FWIW counting audit non-conformities is like the police issuing speeding tickets. 0 speeding tickets doesn't mean you don't speed or that you are a good driver... There's more to it that a pure number. In a previous life as a CB auditor, I wrote 1 major - the total QMS was not being implemented - nearly every requirement I'd looked at in 2 days, was non-compliant.

 

[CanadianQA]

Well, I work for an aviation maintenance and manufacturing company. We are regulated by Transport Canada and an having an audit program has always been a requirement of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, so you could say that we've had an ISO 9001 compliant audit program for years. Transport Canada has audited us several times over the past 7 years and have never issued findings during their audits, so I wasn't surprised (somewhat relieved though!) when there were no findings from the ISO auditor.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

There's more to it that a pure number.

in total agreement here. Measuring the effectiveness of a QMS through external NC numbers is not advisable, as that number depends much more on the auditor than the system itself and, as we all know, there is tremendous variation in external auditor competence and approaches.

Well, I work for an aviation maintenance and manufacturing company.

That being the case, you should be looking into AS9110, or, if you really go for AS9100, you should include the repair and maintenance part of the business in the scope of certification.

 

[CanadianQA]

That being the case, you should be looking into AS9110, or, if you really go for AS9100, you should include the repair and maintenance part of the business in the scope of certification.

Thanks for the input Sidney. We have no customers on our maintenance side requesting / requiring AS9110, however several of our manufacturing customers requiring AS9100. I had actually intended to leave the maintenance / repair sector out of the AS9100 scope, but keep them in the ISO 9001 scope. All of the CB's that I asked for quotes from said that this is common and wouldn't be a problem.

Why do you suggest including maintenance in the scope of a specifically manufacturing standard?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Why do you suggest including maintenance in the scope of a specifically manufacturing standard?

I am a firm believer that the main beneficiary of a quality system is the organization implementing the standard itself. If properly applied, AS9100 is a much more robust QMS standard compared to 9001 and would certainly make the job of complying with Part 145 "easier".

Boeing contracts with organizations similar to yours. This is what they say in the Boeing D6-82479 document:

For Suppliers under contract for Maintenance, Repair or Overhaul (MRO), the Supplier’s 9100* certification must have an associated CB assessment report/package that contains evidence that service/repair process was assessed.

 

[CanadianQA]

Thanks again Sidney. I agree with you that there would certainly be benefits on the maintenance side from the AS9100 QMS, however, not sure that I would agree that the AS9100 QMS would make compliance to CAR 573 (Part 145 equivalent in Canada) easier. A basic QMS has always been part of the regulatory framework for maintenance and manufacturing organizations in Canada, but it requires nowhere near the depth that the AS91XX standards require. To me, added requirements mean added complexity.

That being said, our Maintenance Director made it clear to me that he doesn't want to have to be "bound to the AS9100 stuff", so that's the real reason I'm leaving it out of the scope.

Thanks so much all for the discussion!