Moving from AC7004 to AS9100D


My first post and I apologize in advance, I am sure this has been beaten to death but I am coming up empty handed in my internet combing. I have been tasked with continuing my company's Nadcap accreditation and transition their QMS toward AS9100D. Apparently there is rumblings about Nadcap transition toward a more AS based QMS requirement than the current AC7004. We are 7004 compliant and what I am curious about is what is actually missing clause-wise from AC7004 in comparison to AS9100. From what I can tell AS9100 is more streamlined than AC7004 however I am certain that clauses are overlooked. I am curious if anyone out there has any specifics or suggestions. Thanks in advance.

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Apparently there is rumblings about Nadcap transition toward a more AS based QMS requirement than the current AC7004.
According to this PR, this has happened a few years ago. I have no experience with AC7004, but AS9100, if implemented as it is supposed to be, it will require a company wide effort and significant top management involvement. And, chances are, you will have a lot of fun :naughty: selecting an IAQG approved CB and, then, dealing with their auditors.

Good luck.

Big Jim

AC7004 is a streamlined version of AS9100. You should really get a copy of both and compare them.

AC7004 is provided by the certification body PRI. PRI has two divisions. One of them handles NADCAP and the other functions like a more normal certification body. The division that handles NADCAP provides AS7004 to their NADCAP clients. It is frequently sold as a one day audit add on to the NADCAP audits. There is no other source for AC7004. I have forgotten what is gutted out of AS9100 for AC7004 but I understand that it is similar to AS9003 which is a dumbed down version of AS9100, which is very unpopular.


Personal opinion here: I hope you get the opportunity to work with a better organization than PRI.
I am finishing up a 3 day course on electroplating through PRI today. I have been in the defense\aerospace coating industry for 13 years and PRI\Nadcap was always talked about with such reverence. This is my first dealing with them and I have no complaints with the instructor but the coursework\slides have had many errors that the instructor has caught. So far I have not been impressed. It doesn't seem to be very polished. Unfortunately the facility I work for now has 13 Nadcap accredited plating lines so this is just the beginning of my dealings.


Trusted Information Resource
...many errors...

Isn't that their motto?

I helped create a checklist. I bitched and moaned it was flawed. The checklist had a step to inspect passivation with a salt spray test known to cause false positives. A salt fog was the better solution. Did they listen to me? Noooooooo.

[sarcasm]So glad they asked me to be on the committee.[\end sarcasm]
Top Bottom